Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Low-Energy Light Bulbs

John Pugh: What assessment his Department has made of local authority arrangements for the disposal of low-energy light bulbs.

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is responsible for approving facilities for the disposal of electrical equipment, including low-energy light bulbs. No assessment has been made.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that answer. In my council area, half the waste centres have no collection point for bulbs, retailers do not take them and the council advice is to stick them in the bin. Is that not the real picture nationwide? Can the Minister enlighten us further?

Joan Ruddock: I can certainly enlighten the hon. Gentleman. That is not the picture with which I am familiar. I took the trouble to inquire about local facilities for his constituents. I understand that Merseyside waste disposal authority has 14 designated collection points, five of which have separate collections, and that Sefton has two collection points, of which one, at Sefton Meadows, is separate. I rang Sefton Meadows, and the staff there performed well; they were able to answer my question about how to dispose of a low-energy light bulb properly.
	More information needs to be given to the public. That is the duty of local authorities, all of which have sites where such light bulbs can be taken, and of retailers, who have a responsibility when selling them to say where they can be disposed of. A few retailers will take them back.

Betty Williams: A constituent has raised an issue with me about his four-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter, who suffers from eczema. She suffers great discomfort under standard low-energy bulbs—he cites as examples those in Boots and Mothercare— but when she is under standard fluorescent lighting or near household low-energy bulbs, she does not suffer. Can my hon. Friend throw any light on that problem for my constituents?

Joan Ruddock: That certainly must be a serious problem for a child with eczema. Since the phase-out of domestic high-energy light bulbs was announced and has become better known, we have received anecdotal evidence that some people with certain skin conditions may be affected by low-energy bulbs. Working with the Department of Health, we are looking seriously at the matter. I have agreed a meeting with Lupus UK, and if others wish to join us at that meeting, I would be pleased to see them. There is a difference between domestic lighting and some other forms of fluorescent lighting still used in shops and offices. Domestic lighting has improved so much that we anticipate that the problem will be overcome.

Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware that if one accidentally breaks a low-energy light bulb, the dust inside is mercury? Inhaling mercury can be very dangerous. In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned additional funds being made available to encourage people to make their homes energy-efficient. Will that budget extend to clear guidance and better packaging to ensure that such bulbs are not broken, and clear instructions about what to do if they are?

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that issue has been mentioned a lot in the press, and we need to make it clear what the problem is. Low-energy bulbs contain about 5 mg of mercury now, compared with 100 mg when they first came out. The amount is constantly being reduced, and low-mercury bulbs are now available. If a bulb should be broken—although the chances of one breaking are extremely low, lower than for the old-fashioned incandescent bulbs—

Michael Fabricant: It might be dropped.

Joan Ruddock: If it were to be dropped it might not break, but if it did, the amount of mercury in a new bulb is perhaps enough to cover the tip of a ballpoint pen. However, mercury is dangerous and care must therefore be taken. The simple thing to do is what any sensible person would do with a dangerous chemical: open the window, leave the room for 10 to 15 minutes and then sweep up the broken bulb, seal it in a bag and dispose of it in the way that I described. However, people should not be nervous of the bulbs; no mercury escapes when they are in use.

Chewing Gum

Graham Allen: If he will seek discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on tax incentives for manufacturers of chewing gum to create a biodegradable product; and if he will make a statement.

Jonathan R Shaw: As my hon. Friend knows, there are always discussions between Departments and the Treasury on a range of issues. Any announcement on taxation is in the gift of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Graham Allen: The Minister will know that disposal of chewing gum disfigures our city centres, gets on wheelchair users' wheelchairs, in the hair of children and so on. On the basis that the polluter should pay, will my hon. Friend ask the manufacturers to come to the Department to have a serious discussion with him about how we can undo some of that pollution? If they do not come up with some answers—there are biodegradable alternatives—will he consider making representations to the Treasury?

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend and I recently had an Adjournment debate about the matter in Westminster Hall. The manufacturers are investing in research and development to provide a biodegradable product that is also non-sticky. Clearly, it is essential for the manufacturers that it tastes good and that it sells. That is obviously a commercial issue for them. The Department, along with a number of partners, meets the industry, and at future meetings I will discuss with manufacturers the point made by my hon. Friend. On taxation, I refer him to my earlier reply.

Robert Key: Will the Minister admit that this farce has been running for at least a quarter century? Is it not time to recognise that the civilised world has lost the battle against chewing gum, and that where people can spit chewing gum out, they will? In addition to the good work of the chewing gum action group, would it not be better to concentrate on encouraging research into technology that can clean up the mess more quickly and more cheaply than is now possible?

Jonathan R Shaw: There has been a series of schemes throughout the country whereby councils have tried to educate the local community. Oxford council saw the biggest reduction in the amount of litter from chewing gum. It is the case that we need to increase the clean-up capability, and councils are doing their level best, and it costs a fortune. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, a biodegradable non-sticky gum should be developed. He is right. The problem of chewing gum plagues every shopping precinct up and down the land. Councils are doing their best, but the key thing—if the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) does not mind my saying that—in the message to members of the public is, "Don't spit it out. Put it in the flipping bin."

Bill Olner: May I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to take the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)? Chewing gum is a plague on all our communities, whether they be big or small, and a disproportionate cost is paid by society—not only by local authorities using council tax to clean up the mess, but by the people affected when it sticks to their clothing or is walked into their homes. I would not advocate going down the Singapore route by banning chewing gum completely, but every piece of chewing gum sold in this country should be biodegradable and non-sticky.

Jonathan R Shaw: There are two manufacturers, with whom we are working closely. They are looking to develop a product that will be tasty and will sell. Let us hope that in future the type of chewing gum that now disfigures our pavements becomes a thing of the past. That requires a great deal of work. I know that the manufacturers are undertaking that and I am sure they have heard the voices from colleagues in the House today, which reflect wider public opinion.

Nigel Evans: Let us not let Wrigley's wriggle out of this one.  [Interruption.] Well, it is as bad as the joke from the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) about light bulbs. The industry probably makes hundreds of millions of pounds from chewing gum and it should be investing much of that in research and development to produce biodegradable chewing gum. While we are waiting for that to happen, will the Minister have a word with the Home Office about enforcement, so that far more of those who spit chewing gum out on to the streets—a disgusting habit—face fines?

Jonathan R Shaw: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, it is illegal to drop gum. The Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gave councils the power to issue fixed penalty notices to people who do so, and councils are increasingly using that power.

Energy Efficiency

John Robertson: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on increasing energy efficiency in the poorest households.

Hilary Benn: Improving energy efficiency in the poorest households is very important in tackling fuel poverty. Our latest annual progress report sets out the action that we are taking across Government, including through the Warm Front programme and the energy efficiency commitment.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know that he thinks climate change is as important as I do. In that respect, the Warm Front and Warm Deal schemes, both introduced by the Labour party, have provided financial support and help for efficiency improvements in well over 1 million households in this country.
	However, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the calls from the Government-sponsored Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for an extra £500 million to improve the Warm Front scheme? Will he ensure that the knock-on effect will get to the people on the Warm Deal programme in Scotland, and will not go into the Scottish Executive budget to be hidden away, as happened in respect of disabled children?

Hilary Benn: Funding for the Warm Deal programme is a matter for the Scottish Executive. As for funding in England targeted at those on low incomes, if we take together the investment that we will make in Warm Front and what will come from the new carbon emissions reduction target—which is double the energy efficiency commitment, or EEC—we will, over the next three years, invest £2.3 billion in dealing with the problem raised by my hon. Friend. That is an increase of £680 million compared with the previous spending review period.

Daniel Rogerson: The Secretary of State may be aware of many Members' concern that the prices quoted for schemes under the grants administered by the Energy Action Grants Agency, or EAGA, are far higher than those that a local contractor would deliver for the same scheme. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of that issue and its impact on the overall budgets to deliver the objectives?

Hilary Benn: I am aware of those concerns. The scheme is audited and assessed to make sure that we get value for money. Having looked at some of the cases in a bit of detail, I think that we have to consider whether we are comparing like with like. Under the Warm Front programme, there is a follow-up service and so on, which may not apply in the case of local contractors bidding to do similar work. It is important that we compare like with like, but I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to ensure that we get every penny of value from the money we put in.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Warm Front programme is available only to pensioners and disabled people; many other people in poverty do not have access to Warm Front grants. The grants are available for central heating boilers only when they have failed; they are not available to replace old and inefficient boilers. Surely it is in the best interests of poorer people, the economy as a whole and tackling climate change that inefficient boilers in all the homes of those on the lowest incomes should be available for grant aid.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the need to improve the energy efficiency of home heating. In addition to the Warm Front scheme and the help that it provides, we are increasing, through the carbon emissions reduction target, the requirement on energy companies to encourage and support home owners to improve their energy efficiency.
	The issue raises a fundamental point about what more we can do to ensure that energy efficiency and therefore carbon emissions from domestic households improve. Although from 2016 we will deal with new houses through the zero-carbon homes policy, we have an existing stock of about 25 million or 26 million homes for which a lot more could be done. The launch of the green homes service in April this year will provide a lot more advice for householders on the steps that they can take.

Gregory Barker: People are not worried only about the value for money of EAGA's contracts: is the Secretary of State aware that the agency has been charging low-income households up to £800 to access the Government grants? Having paid that money last autumn, some low-income households have been told that they will not get their new heating until later this year, after the winter. Is the Secretary of State aware of that, and if so, what is he doing about it?

Hilary Benn: When the hon. Gentleman says that people are being charged to access the grant, is he referring to the fact that the grant is available up to a certain amount and that any work that is then required above and beyond that has to be contributed to by the household? If so, we have always known that that is the case, because the grant provides support up to a certain level. If he is talking about something else and has particular cases in mind, will he bring them to my attention so that I can look at them?

Eric Illsley: May I turn my right hon. Friend's attention to electrical efficiency within the domestic scene and, again, to low-energy light bulbs, which the Government wish to introduce? Has he had any discussions with the Society of Light and Lighting about the power factor of low-energy light bulbs, which has to be at a level of 0.9 in order to make them effective? Any power factor in excess of that level—some bulbs on sale now have a factor of three times that—means that the bulb is burning power at three times the rating at which it is sold. For example, if it is 10 W, it will burn power at the rate of 30 to 40 W and is therefore not a low-energy light bulb at all. Will my right hon. Friend discuss those issues with the society?

Hilary Benn: The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who just answered the question about low-energy light bulbs, is in contact with that organisation, and I have no doubt that she will pursue the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Food Pricing

John Barrett: What consideration he has given to the regulation of farm to retail price spreads, with particular reference to supermarkets; and if he will make a statement.

Jonathan R Shaw: The Government believe that prices are for the market to determine and do not get involved, provided that competition rules are respected. As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the Competition Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into the groceries market as a whole.

John Barrett: Figures show that while the average farm-gate price for a litre of milk is 18p, it costs 21p to produce it, and it is then sold for 60p in the supermarket. What is the Minister going to do to give a fair deal to farmers, who are being held to ransom by the big supermarkets?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for that question. Gate prices have increased considerably. That is partly to do with changing markets, with China and India increasingly wanting dairy products. We had the interim report from the commission in October, and we expect a report in the first half of this year. Some of the issues that it will consider include tightening up the code, perhaps to include some of the other supermarkets. It is vital that we have transparency from farmer to producer to supermarket so that we can answer these questions, which people have been concerned about for a long time.

Jim Sheridan: The wages and conditions of workers have an impact on the farm to retail prices in our supermarkets. Is my hon. Friend aware of Unite's campaign to highlight the plight of migrant workers supplying food to major supermarkets such as Marks & Spencer? Does he agree that the terms and conditions of those migrant workers should not be exploited in order to produce cheap food for the supermarkets?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He has a proud track record in introducing the Bill that became the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The authority is prosecuting where migrant and mobile workers are being exploited. We have the legislation and a series of safeguards, but if hon. Members are aware of any cases, they should bring them to the authority's attention. I have met its representatives, who have prosecuted where they have found such cases and will continue to do so.

Peter Atkinson: But does the Minister accept that the low prices in the livestock sector recently were not the fault of the supermarkets, which actually behaved very responsibly, but of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which provoked the foot and mouth crisis that caused such a problem? Interestingly, in comparison with Scotland, where farmers have been compensated for collateral damage, English farmers have been left to shoulder the entire responsibility for losses on their own.

Jonathan R Shaw: We know that prices for livestock have fallen. That is partly to do with the considerable increase in the price of feed, and the prices have not worked their way through the system. We are aware of that, but the situation is not DEFRA's fault, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Feed prices have gone up across the world; all member states are concerned about those increases, and they are impacting on livestock farmers.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but is he surprised, as I am, at how few suppliers have chosen to give evidence to the Competition Commission inquiry? Does he have a theory as to why so few have given evidence, and how might he encourage them to give evidence to that important inquiry?

Jonathan R Shaw: My noble Friend Lord Rooker has submitted evidence to the Competition Commission. He was concerned about the power of supermarkets to force prices down, about the viability of wholesale distribution and its effect on independent stores, and about the effectiveness of the code of practice. We have put forward those points for the Competition Commission to consider. It is at liberty to conduct the inquiry as it sees fit, and I am sure that it has heard my hon. Friend's comments.

David Curry: The Minister is entirely right to want to keep the Government out of this matter. I can think of no bog in which one would descend more rapidly than that of trying to get price controls between farmers and supermarkets. Will he beware of sweeping generalisations, such as statements about how much it costs a farmer to produce a litre of milk? Given the huge variety in the prices the farmers receive, depending on their circumstances, would he note that dedicated supply chains are being put together by supermarkets, which will integrate the chain much more effectively? Will the Government confine themselves to encouraging all sides of the supply industry to co-operate more closely so that it can deliver what the consumer wants at a price the producer can afford, and so that supermarkets can make a reasonable return?

Jonathan R Shaw: I could not disagree with anything the right hon. Gentleman said.

David Kidney: There is a law in other countries to ban retailers from selling products at a price below the cost to them. That issue has been raised most recently in this House in relation to cheap alcohol, but it applies equally to direct farm produce such as milk. Will my hon. Friend at least consider such a change to the law on prices to prevent predatory pricing practices?

Jonathan R Shaw: As I said in an earlier response, the Government do not intend to get involved in price control.

Tim Farron: Consumers visiting their local shop or supermarket who wish to shop ethically, on environmental or animal welfare grounds, or simply because they want to back British farmers, will want to buy British. Is the Minister aware that it is currently entirely permissible for animal carcases to be imported into this country, processed and then packaged as British. Does he agree that that is an outrageous deception, and will he take steps to ensure that the only meat that can be packaged and presented in this country as British comes from British animals?

Jonathan R Shaw: There is a European Union ruling that makes what the hon. Gentleman suggests impossible, but increasingly we see packaging that promotes local produce. The situation is changing, and people are looking to see where food is grown, where it is reared and, more specifically, which of the different counties of our country it comes from. When I was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency last year, I went to the food hall, which was full of businesses from his community providing fantastic produce, which all came from Cumbria. On talking to those businesses, I heard that they were finding access to markets. The Competition Commission has not found any impediment preventing local producers from accessing markets. The message from this House to the consumer must be, "Be discerning. Buy local and buy British."

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is a double rip-off in that not only the farmers but the consumers—the families who buy the milk—are being ripped off by the supermarkets. What can we do to stop that double rip-off? Farm-gate prices are not fair and families pay too much.

Jonathan R Shaw: In response to several hon. Members, I referred to the undesirability of the Government getting involved in price controls. We are not going to do that. However, the Competition Commission is thoroughly examining the matter and a range of issues to do with the relationship between farmers and supermarkets. We expect its report to be published in the early part of this year. If it makes recommendations to the Government, we will, of course, consider them and follow them up.

Cetaceans

Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the viability of cetacean populations in UK waters.

Jonathan R Shaw: During 2007, all species of cetaceans in UK waters underwent an assessment of their favourable conservation status under article 17 of the habitats directive. We plan to publish the findings soon. The latest EU-funded studies of cetacean populations show that levels have remained steady in UK waters over the past decade.

Andrew George: Although I am grateful for that reply, the Under-Secretary will be aware of the growing concern about the health of cetacean populations, especially on the Cornish and south-west coast, and particularly that of the inshore bottle-nosed dolphin population, which the Cornwall Wildlife Trust recently estimated to have fallen to seven. What contribution is the Department making to understanding better the health and the cause of the decline of those stocks?

Jonathan R Shaw: We spent around £1.6 million between 2000 and 2005 on research on cetaceans and especially on by-catch. We are expecting research from the sea mammal unit at St. Andrews university to provide information about the effectiveness of attaching pingers to fishing vessels. We expect the results of that research by April, and we will consider it and look to working in partnership with the fishing industry to ascertain whether pingers can be introduced effectively.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, as do many hon. Members. We are investing, and we want to ensure that we keep by-catches and all fatalities of these beautiful creatures to an absolute minimum. I will ensure that he is updated as we receive the results of the research and move forward on dealing with the matter.

Bill Wiggin: Dolphins are beautiful, intelligent and wonderful creatures. Why should they be threatened by DEFRA's systemic incompetence? Bottle-nosed dolphins in the Moray firth are threatened by oil spill and seismic testing. Pingers on gill nets either do not work or are not being used. Pair trawling drowns and smashes more dolphins than any other method of fishing and it is carried out only 6 nautical miles from our coast by French boats with historical rights. There is further rumour of a delay to the marine Bill.
	DEFRA's record on whales is even worse. It issued its much publicised recruiting document to 57 countries, 42 of which were already members of the International Whaling Commission. That is why the Department had to do it again this year. Surely that is incompetence. Is it not the case that everyone wants to save dolphins and whales except the Government?

Jonathan R Shaw: We banned pair trawling in the western channel. We do not have the ability to ban French vessels— [Interruption.] In case the hon. Gentleman does not know, we are in the common fisheries policy, to which the Conservative Government signed up. We presented our argument in Europe and we took unilateral action to ban pair trawling—that constitutes taking an effective measure. We argued our case and we were unable to persuade others, but we are taking action ourselves.
	The sea mammal research unit at St. Andrews has advised us that there is no danger to bottle-nosed dolphins in the Moray firth from ship-to-ship oil transfer.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I should have been here. I say that we must accept the advice of one of the most revered institutions in this country. If we are given contrary advice, we will, of course, act on it.
	I regret the partisan position that the hon. Gentleman takes on whaling. When I met the Japanese deputy ambassador, I said that all hon. Members were united in their condemnation of Japan on whaling. Yet the hon. Gentleman tries to take a partisan position. He is isolated. I told the deputy ambassador that Conservative and Liberal Members shared our concern. Our record is one of the best in the world.

Bill Wiggin: It is appalling.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is not appalling. We are one of the only countries to summon ambassadors to listen to our concerns. The International Fund for Animal Welfare—IFAW—and many other non-governmental organisations have congratulated the Government on our action.

Food Security (Climate Change)

Tony Lloyd: What assessment he has made of the risk posed to the UK food supply by climate change.

Hilary Benn: DEFRA'S 2006 assessment of food security highlighted climate change as one of the many factors that may affect the UK's food supply. What matters to the safeguarding of our food supply is a strong farming industry, energy security, access to food from a variety of sources, a strong food chain and infrastructure, and having the capacity and contingency planning to deal with specific risks.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend makes at least part of the point that, historically, the UK has often simply equated food security with market mechanisms. We know, however, that those market mechanisms are under pressure, partly because of the growth in demand from countries such as India and China and the growth in demand for biofuels. Climate change could, of course, destroy the whole supply chain. In that context, is my right hon. Friend confident that we have the forward planning to provide sufficient agricultural land and the necessary diverse and adaptable skills in the agricultural population to ensure that we can guarantee food security in the future?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises a really important point about the impact of the changing climate on the farming industry. First, on our capacity as a world to feed ourselves, the Food and Agriculture Organisation has said that world food production is still rising more quickly than the global population. There will, however, be between 9 billion and 9.5 billion of us on this planet by 2050, compared with 6.2 billion now.
	Secondly, although the UK's self-sufficiency has declined a bit in recent years, it is still higher than it was in the 1930s, before the second world war, and higher than it was after the second world war.
	Thirdly, a change in climate might mean that some crops that are currently grown will be more difficult to grow, but it could also open up new possibilities. One of the practical steps that we are taking is to fund research at the Agriculture Development Advisory Service and at Warwick into the potential impact of more extreme weather events on the farming community. The truth is that this is an issue for all of us to think about. We need to try to anticipate what might be coming, so that the farming industry will be able to respond.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that the UK livestock industry makes a huge contribution to not only the quality but the security of the food supply in this country? It is also true that cattle are a major generator of methane gas. Is it not important, however, to keep this matter in balance, and to say to anyone who criticises the farming industry that the value of the livestock industry far outweighs any contribution that it might make to climate change?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I agree with him, with one proviso. The livestock industry does all the things that he has described, as well as contributing to our landscape, as has been said. We are strong supporters of the industry and we want it to thrive. Like all parts of the economy, however, it is going to have to make a contribution to the fight against climate change. I am glad to be able to say that emissions of methane have declined, largely as a result of reducing livestock numbers, but that will remain an issue because all parts of the economy, including farming, are going to have to make a contribution. That is why I welcome the work that the Farming Futures Project is doing, and the response of the National Farmers Union and others in acknowledging that climate change is an issue for farming, just as it is for the rest of us.

Badgers

Nick Palmer: What representations he has received on the former chief scientist's views on badger culling; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: I have received various representations on the former chief scientific adviser's views on whether badger culling should form part of the bovine TB control strategy. Those have come in the form of questions from hon. Members and a lot of correspondence from concerned organisations and members of the public.

Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the findings of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, which were developed over such a long period and at such considerable expense, should not be cast aside in favour of the views of an individual scientist, backed by hon. Members whose solution to animal welfare issues is "If in doubt, kill something"?

Hilary Benn: I say to my hon. Friend and the House that, as we know, this is an exceptionally difficult issue. If it were not exceptionally difficult, we would have found a way of resolving it already. Secondly, I met Sir John Bourn just before Christmas and I am in the process of having a series of meetings with all those who have an interest in this matter, as I told the House I would.
	The advice in the ISG report is very clear. The conclusion was that the group did not think that culling could meaningfully contribute to the control of TB. We have all seen what the former chief scientific adviser had to say about that. For me, the issues on which I have to make a decision—and I will—are these: what does the science say; what is the practicality of any course of action; and, I have to say, what is the public acceptability of any course of action. The truth is that the person who holds my office must weigh those three issues in the balance in trying to help the industry and the livestock sector, which is finding it very difficult to deal with. I do not for one second deny the problems faced by the industry. It is a tough issue; I will reach a decision, but in doing that I am going to listen to all the views expressed.

Michael Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Independent Scientific Group put great store by cattle testing and the use of the gamma interferon test. He will also be aware that there is considerable concern in farming circles that that test is now showing a much higher incidence of bovine TB in comparison with the skin test. What steps will he take to resolve that position, particularly taking into account the effect that a higher incidence of the disease could have on his Department's budget?

Hilary Benn: We are using both those approaches. The right hon. Gentleman, who is expert in these matters, is correct in saying that the gamma interferon test produces more positive results. My view is that we should use all the scientific tools at our disposal to try to identify the nature of the problem. I think I am right in saying that there are a couple of potential court cases relating to use of the gamma interferon test, which will be a matter for the courts to resolve. Both tests demonstrate that there is a problem and we have to deal with it. The question is finding the solution that is going to work. A number of different proposals have been made and I look forward with great interest to what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman so ably chairs, has to say when it produces its report.

Colin Breed: I am sure that the Minister recognises the sense of utter despair and anger in the south-west among farmers who over the past 10 years have seen delay after delay at the same time as the slaughter of tens of thousands of their animals. At that rate of progress, we are soon going to see more badgers in the south-west than farm animals. When are the Government going to take some positive decision?

Hilary Benn: As I said in answer to the earlier question, I am going to reach a decision, but as I told the House I am in the process of meeting all the organisations, which have very strong views on this subject. I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about the difficulties that those farmers face, but, with respect, we have to find a solution that is in line with what the science tells us. We have had a 10-year study and we have seen what the report said and the view expressed in it—I do have regard to the science. We have to find a solution that is practical and we also have to weigh the factor of public acceptability in reaching the decision. People have very strong views on both sides of the argument. It is not easy, which is one of the reasons why it has taken so long to come to a decision, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do so.

Ian Cawsey: The views of the former chief scientist are a matter of public record, but will my right hon. Friend share with the House the views of the current chief scientist?

Hilary Benn: I have the pleasure of meeting the new chief scientific adviser later on today; no doubt this issue will be one of a number that we will discuss.

James Paice: The issue of the use of gamma interferon goes further than the Secretary of State suggests. The gamma interferon test has a sensitivity of about 97 per cent., yet we have found that in some herds up to 28 times the number of cattle are reacting to it as to the skin test. His officials are flatly refusing farmers the opportunity of re-testing and insisting on culling all those animals. That is the reason for the court hearings to which he referred.
	Why will the Secretary of State not instruct his officials to allow a re-test, on the understanding that everybody accepts the outcome? All the evidence is that those results are statistically invalid. He should speak to experts: they are all saying that we could not get such a difference in sensitivity between the two tests. Something is wrong somewhere, and putting farmers to the expense of going to court—risking the Secretary of State's money on extra compensatory costs, as well as defending the case—is helping nobody at all.

Hilary Benn: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not quite agree with the analysis that he has put forward. I repeat what I said a moment ago: we should use all the means that we have to try to achieve identification. I understand the strength of feeling in some cases about the impact of this, but if we have an additional test that gives us information about the incidence of bovine TB, it is pretty hard—looking at it from the other point of view—to say that we will not use it. Those tests have different sensitivities, but the question is whether it is right to use both. My view is that it is, but if the matter goes to the courts, they will decide whether the approach that we are taking is reasonable.

Flood Defences

Brian Jenkins: What recent progress has been made on improving flood defences.

Hilary Benn: We are improving protection from river and sea flooding and coastal erosion, and are on course to achieving protection for more than 180,000 households since 2003.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. He will realise, or perhaps I can inform him, that at Fazeley the flooding bank was raised back to design level after flooding. At Elford, a new pump was put in to replace the defunct one after flooding. We await the Tame valley study, as part of the Greater Humber strategy, to see how many other weak points we have. Will he give us an assurance that there will be no redundancies or staff lay-offs and no reduction in the Environment Agency until that work is completed? Will he write to me with a date when we can expect the Tame valley study to be complete?

Hilary Benn: I will happily write to my hon. Friend about the River Tame study, because it will look at whether the design levels—for the Tamworth and the Fazeley defences—are still appropriate, and if not what possible solutions can be undertaken. On the resources available to the Environment Agency to work on flood defences, as he will know, the budget has doubled in the past 10 years from £300 million to £600 million a year, and it will increase further. That means that the agency will have more money to spend on more flood defence works.

Topical Questions

Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: The Department's responsibility is to help to enable us all to live within our environmental means. May I take this opportunity to report to the House the fact that Adair Turner has been appointed chair of the new Committee on Climate Change? As the House will know, the committee will play a vital role in helping us to move to a low-carbon economy, and I look forward to working with Lord Turner and the other members of the committee in helping to make that happen.

Laurence Robertson: For Environment Agency purposes, my constituency of Tewkesbury falls within the midlands. I was rather disturbed to see that the Government's flood defence grant in aid to the Environment Agency for the midlands is being reduced from £51.4 million last year to £45.5 million this year, and to £40 million next year. Can the Secretary of State give an explanation for that? The midlands is a large area, and he has been kind enough to visit Tewkesbury to see the devastation there, so can he guarantee that our flood defences will not suffer because of that budget change?

Hilary Benn: I know how much the hon. Gentleman's constituents have been affected. Although the flooding in Tewkesbury was mercifully not as bad as it was last summer, we were all waiting with bated breath to see what happened.
	The main point about investment in flood defence and regional figures is that the figures may go up or down from year to year depending on the nature of the projects being funded. When a big capital investment project in a region in one year is finished and the money has been spent, the figure in the following year may not be as large. The trend line is clear, however. It is not possible to increase the budget, as we have, from £300 million to £600 million over a decade, and to be committed to increasing it to £800 million by 2010-11, without the trend line rising. There will be such ebbs and flows, but the overall trend is up, which means—as I said a moment ago—that we will be able to fund the additional flood defence works that we all want.

Mark Todd: The Trent, Dove and Derwent rivers all cross parts of my constituency, and every time the waters rise villages along their banks look on with anxiety. What are the prospects of further investment to meet some of their needs? I am thinking particularly of communities in villages such as Hatton—which has benefited from spending of some substance so far—and Scropton, Egginton, Willington and Ambaston. All those villages are threatened by flooding, and experienced it in 2000.

Hilary Benn: The catchment flood management plan for the Trent has identified a low-to-medium risk of flooding in the lower River Dove catchment area, which includes Hatton, Scropton and Egginton. In response to that, the planners will think about what flood risk management measures will be possible over the next three years. They will deliver a plan for the lower Dove area specifically, to establish first what is technically possible and secondly what is best in economic terms, while recognising that ultimately the Environment Agency must prioritise the increasing amounts of money that we are providing in order to deliver the maximum possible protection.

Peter Ainsworth: According to information published by the National Audit Office this week, the estimated cost to all of us, as taxpayers, of cleaning up Britain's existing nuclear waste has risen by 18 per cent. over the past two years, to a staggering £73 billion. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the body responsible for decommissioning, which has had no chairman since the middle of last year and which last week lost a senior director, is fit for purpose? Does he not agree that whatever the low-carbon merits of nuclear—and goodness me, we need low-carbon technologies: the carbon figures announced by the Department today are depressing—going ahead with nuclear new build without having sorted out the toxic legacy of the past would be irresponsible?

Hilary Benn: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the decommissioning authority. It has a very important task, and I have confidence in the work that it is doing. As for nuclear, the choice is very plain. A number of people's views on nuclear have changed because of the threat of climate change. The one thing that is absolutely clear about it is that it is a low-carbon technology, producing—I speak from memory—7 g to 22 g of carbon per kWh. Gas produces about 380 g per kWh, and coal about 755 g. There really is no contest. Waste is an issue, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we must deal with the legacy of waste from our existing nuclear programme anyway. It will be added to if new nuclear power stations are built in line with the policy that the Government have set out.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) not want to ask another question?

Peter Ainsworth: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was going to change the subject to Natural England, which was established less than 18 months ago to be
	"a powerful new champion of nature".
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Department is seeking cuts of more than 15 per cent. in its core budget? That will create huge problems for partner organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Wildlife International and the Wildlife Trust. Those bodies have no idea what key projects they will still be able to work on after the end of March. How will this shambolic situation help the Government to fulfil their commitment to halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2010? How confident is the Secretary of State that that promise will be kept?

Hilary Benn: This week I met the chair and chief executive of Natural England to review the organisation's performance since its establishment. As I told them, I think they have done a pretty darn good job. There has, for example, been real progress in getting sites of special scientific interest into the right condition, which is one of the targets that we set. I applaud the work done by Natural England, which has proved itself to be a powerful advocate of the cause of biodiversity and the natural environment.
	On funding, we will make announcements about the budget in due course. The budget is tight because, although there is growth, a lot of that will go on increased investment in flood defences, so difficult decisions will have to be taken. When I have taken them, I will announce them.

Mark Lazarowicz: Elsewhere in Parliament, the Department has an exhibition about the excellent work it is doing to promote public awareness of climate change. Why, however, are some of the Department's programmes promoting awareness restricted to England, or England and Wales? I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to ensure that they apply throughout the UK, where appropriate—and, obviously, in association with the relevant devolved Administrations.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the advertisement for the "act on CO2 calculator", which is available in Portcullis House until 5 o'clock today for Members to test their carbon footprints.
	As for making such material available, on the internet it is accessible to everybody. Therefore, constituents in Scotland will have had the opportunity to access it, and all Members could publicise it. Also, there is press advertising, which is of course seen in the devolved Administration areas. We have spoken to our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. This material is extremely important, as more than 40 per cent. of our emissions are down to our individual actions, and we have suggested that it may be made available for public engagement in the devolved areas. If the devolved Administrations are willing to contribute to, and participate in, these schemes, we would be delighted to co-operate with them and make our expertise available.

Steve Webb: In the light of the latest scientific evidence on the speed of climate change, what is Ministers' latest assessment of the adequacy, or otherwise, of a 60 per cent. CO2 reduction target?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the speech that the Prime Minister made in November. The target of at least 60 per cent. was set in the light of royal commission advice, but the Prime Minister has acknowledged, as we all do, that the science is evolving—we read the reports—and that is why he said that it is now felt that the reduction might need to be increased to 80 per cent. That is also why we will ask the Committee on Climate Change, as one of its first tasks under its new chair, to advise on what the 2050 figure should be. On a point that relates to several issues to do with the Climate Change Bill, having established this important, authoritative and influential body, we should let it do its job and give us the advice, so that the Government can then take the final decision on what to do.

Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be interested to know that I spent last Saturday at an event in Cardiff on giving opportunities to the public to participate in discussion about the idea of a carbon trading allowance, and on seeing what contribution that that could make, as an alternative to measures such as taxation, to encourage individual responsibility in reducing people's carbon footprint. Does the Department welcome that approach by the RSA—the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—and also by the Co-operative party, to encourage individuals to engage in the idea of creating carbon-neutral communities?

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend raises a good point. The RSA is a valuable body in this respect and it is involved in work on personal carbon trading allowances. The Department is keen to receive the results of the RSA's work, and we are pioneering work to see whether there is cost-benefit in having personal carbon trading allowances and whether there would be public acceptability. This is all in its early stages, but in addition we are providing £8.5 million-worth of grants to local communities, and 83 community projects have been established, which are very much in line with what the RSA and the Co-operative party have advocated: that we should enable communities to take action to reduce emissions at community level.

John Barrett: I hear what the Secretary of State says about increased resources to combat flooding. Given that flooding will be a more and more pressing issue in the years to come, what reassurance can he give my constituents in Murrayfield, the home of Scottish rugby, who have been regularly blighted by flooding in recent years, that the resources allocated on a UK basis will be spent north of the border on such projects, so that Murrayfield is not flooded on Sunday when the French visit?

Hilary Benn: I wish the team every success in the match on Sunday. All Members of the House want to ensure that the increased investment in flood and flood defence is used as effectively as possible to provide the best protection possible. That puts a responsibility on those spending the money to use it as wisely and effectively as possible, so that protection is provided in recognition of the rising risk. The hon. Gentleman touches on a good example.

David Heathcoat-Amory: What is the Department doing to counter light pollution? If one flies over southern England at night, one finds the place ablaze with unnecessary lighting, which is not only very wasteful but prevents people from seeing properly dark skies. I say that as chairman of the all-party group on astronomy. What are Ministers doing to counter the threat—and, indeed the reality—of light pollution, because, after all, the skies are the largest part of the environment, for which the Department is responsible?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for that question, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. On the one hand our constituents write to us saying that more street lights are needed in a particular area because they are concerned about antisocial behaviour and so on, but on the other hand, as he points out, we want to see clear skies. Thus, this is about the getting the balance right. If we can reduce the amount of light pollution, that will be good not only for astronomers but in terms of climate change.

David Amess: My mother will be a beneficiary of the splendid idea to award medals for Land Army girls. Now that the forms have been issued, will the Minister or the Secretary of State share with the House how vigorously the information will be interpreted, given that these ladies are of mature years and their sight, hearing and memory are not exactly what they were 60 years ago?

Hilary Benn: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman's mother will be one of the recipients of the badge. May I say that all of us, as Members of the House, have a part to play in ensuring that the information gets out? Here is a little advert: 08459 33 55 77 is the phone number people should call to get an application form—they can also get one from the website. I absolutely take the point that he raises, because I want to get the badge to all the surviving members of the women's Land Army, who did so much for the country. They fought in the fields and in the forests to ensure that we were capable of winning the war. We owe them a big debt of gratitude, and the badge will be a sign of a grateful nation.

Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps the Government will take to make a vaccine against bluetongue available for this year?

Hilary Benn: I can gladly tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have placed an order for 22.5 million such doses—indeed, we were the first of the northern European countries to place an order. We are working closely with the industry. I met the industry representatives last week to talk about preparations for the vaccination programme. Obviously, we are keen to get that going as soon as the vaccine is delivered by the company with which we have contracted, because, as he will know only too well, this is the way out of the problems that the industry is facing because of bluetongue's arrival.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we come to business questions and the subsequent motion relating to the fourth report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I should inform the House that, on the broader subject of Members' allowances, in anticipation of the decision of the House on 24 January to refer that matter to the Members Estimate Committee, and as Chairman of that Committee, on 22 January I summoned a meeting for Monday 4 February.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The provisional business for the week commencing 4 February will be:
	Monday 4 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
	Tuesday 5 February—Debate on the treaty of Lisbon provisions relating to human rights, followed by continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [3rd Allotted Day]—Any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to human rights. Followed by motion to approve a local government restructuring order relating to Wiltshire.
	Wednesday 6 February—Debate on the treaty of Lisbon provisions relating to the Single Market. Followed by continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [4th Allotted Day]—any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to the single market.
	Thursday 7 February—Topical debate. Subject to be announced, followed by motions relating to European scrutiny reform.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 18 February will include:
	Monday 18 February—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill.
	Tuesday 19 February—Debate on the treaty of Lisbon provisions relating to foreign, security and defence policy. Followed by continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [5th allotted day]—any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to foreign, security and defence policy. Followed by motion to approve a local government restructuring order relating to Shropshire.
	Wednesday 20 February—Debate on the treaty of Lisbon provisions relating to international development. Followed by continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [6th( )allotted day]—any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to international development.
	Thursday 21 February—Topical debate: subject to be announced. Followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument on control orders. Followed by motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2008 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2008.
	Friday 22 February—Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for February will be:
	Thursday 7 February—A debate on the report from the Transport Committee on novice drivers.
	Thursday 21 February—A debate on the report from the Health Committee on the electronic patient record.
	Thursday 28 February—A debate on the report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on refuse collection.
	Today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the next Budget will be on 12 March.
	On behalf of the whole House, I wish to extend my warmest congratulations to Jill Pay on her appointment as the new Serjeant at Arms. Our men in tights are now to be led by a woman in tights.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I join her in welcoming the new Serjeant at Arms and congratulating her on her appointment.
	For the past five years, the long-term public finance report has been published in November or December. With February upon us, the 2007 report has still not been published. Given that it is expected to show that for the first time total public sector pension liabilities are more than £1 trillion, will the Leader of the House tell us why this report has been delayed and when it will be published?
	On Tuesday, we learned that more than 10,000 nurses and midwives left the NHS last year to work abroad. The Royal College of Nursing warns that we face a staffing crisis. May I suggest NHS staffing for a future topical debate?
	Last week, the Prime Minister said that he was accompanied on his trip to China and India by
	"British business men and women"—[ Official Report, 23 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1491.]
	But no business women went on that trip. May we have a statement explaining why the clunking fist did not take any business women with him?
	May we have a debate, in Government time, on the Defence Committee's latest annual report? It criticised the Ministry of Defence for failing to give our servicemen and women proper breaks between operational duties in Iraq and Afghanistan and warned that as a result growing numbers of people are leaving our armed forces. So we have a lack of training, inadequate housing and a part-time Defence Secretary. When will the Government honour the military covenant and treat our troops with the respect they deserve?
	Ten years after the Government made a manifesto promise to get rid of mixed-sex wards, the Health Minister, Lord Darzi, has admitted that that aspiration cannot be met. Will the Secretary of State for Health make a statement to the House on the failure of that key Government policy?
	Last year, the Justice Minister claimed that community punishments were a tough and demanding alternative to prison. A new report from the National Audit Office found that offenders are getting away with failing to turn up for community punishments if they oversleep or if they produce their own sick note. It is a complete farce, so may we have a debate on the Government's community punishment scheme?
	This week, the Minister for Schools and Learners ordered local councils not to close village schools, but just last month the Government issued guidance to councils ordering them to shut schools with empty desks. Will the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families make a statement to clarify the Government's policy on village schools?
	Last January, the Prime Minister launched a campaign to highlight Britishness. We now know that at the same time he decided to remove the image of Britannia from the 50p piece. It will be the first time in 300 years that Britannia has not featured on any British coin. Will the Prime Minister make a statement on how removing a historic British symbol fits into his Britishness campaign?
	Those are all examples of a Government who start by saying one thing and end up doing another. Does that not show that we have a country that is drifting under a Government who lack direction and a Prime Minister who simply cannot get a grip?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady mentioned pension liabilities, but failed to make a point about pension fund assets. The most important issue for pension funds is the strength of the economy. That is why sustained low inflation, low interest rates and growth in the economy are the most important issues for pensions in the future.
	I take it that the right hon. Lady has made a representation for a topical debate on midwives and NHS staffing. She will know that the issue was debated in Westminster Hall yesterday, and she will bear it in mind that, because of increasing investment in the health service and the increasing recruitment of midwives, more midwives are going into training than ever before. Those measures are part of our determination to increase the quality of maternity services.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned business men and women. She is right, of course, that we need to do everything we can to encourage more women in commerce. Further work is coming out of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to support women. If we compare our economy with the American economy, we see that our competitiveness gap is accounted for by the fact that we have fewer women who start and run their own businesses. We must make progress on that, but I find it a bit much that the shadow Leader of the House—one of only 17 Tory women Members of Parliament who have never done anything to champion women's rights—should try to tell us what to do, when we have championed women's rights over the years.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the Defence Committee. Training is not inadequate. The housing provided for our armed forces certainly needs to be improved, and we have made progress in that respect against the background of the spending cuts made by the previous Administration.
	The question of mixed-sex wards is always a matter of concern. The shadow Leader of the House will know that the amount of single-sex accommodation provided has increased, which has ensured that all patients have access to single-sex toilet and bathroom facilities.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the NAO report on community sentences. The Government welcome the report's findings, which show that there has been more enforcement when people breach community sentences, and that more community sentences and drug and alcohol rehabilitation courses are being completed than previously. All that is to be welcomed, and I congratulate probation services on their important work in ensuring that strict community sentences are properly enforced. People who serve such sentences are much less likely to reoffend than those who go to prison.
	The right hon. Lady asked about primary schools in rural areas, and she also mentioned secondary schools. She will know—

Shailesh Vara: She did not say anything about secondary schools.

Harriet Harman: In that case, I shall respond to her question about primary schools in rural areas. She will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners wrote to remind local authorities of the importance of not closing such schools. She might also remember that rural primary schools were closing at the rate of 30 a year when the previous Conservative Government were in power. Under this Government, however, and under the guidance that my hon. Friend has reminded educational authorities about, they have been closing at an average of only seven a year.

Dawn Butler: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition referred to abolishing the stop and search account form. In the area for which I am Member of Parliament, my constituents and I are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than is the case elsewhere, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal worries me greatly. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only way to get more police on the beat is by investing more money in the Metropolitan police, not less?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need to make sure that the police have the power to stop and search so that people on the streets of London and our other towns and cities can be kept safe. However, we must also make absolutely certain that we have the right accountability so that we can be sure that the police act fairly, as both we and they intend. She is right to remind the House that the police are able to carry out their work because of the extra investment that has been made to increase their numbers and pay. Those who would prefer the Metropolitan police budget to be cut, as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) does, would put all of that at risk.

Simon Hughes: First, may I, on behalf of my party, join in the warm welcome that has been extended to Mrs. Pay on her deserved appointment as the new Serjeant at Arms?
	I welcome the Leader of the House's announcement that there will be separate debates next Monday on the police and local government settlements, and that there will also be separate debates, next Tuesday and a fortnight later, on the local government settlements for Wiltshire and Shropshire. Will she confirm that each of the proposed structural changes in the counties of Cornwall, Northumberland and Durham will be the subject of separate debates? I gather that the relevant orders will be considered upstairs in Committee, but I hope that we can have a full debate on each.
	This week, the House has been debating the Lisbon treaty and the European Union (Amendment) Bill, and more debates will take place in the next few weeks. Whatever view we take on those subjects, we have learned from experience that the House does not have a proper procedure for dealing with and scrutinising treaties. Will the Leader of the House undertake to talk to colleagues and come back as soon as possible with some proposals for a better mechanism for looking at any treaties that the Government are considering entering into? By definition, it is too late by the time a treaty is signed to do anything about it and, as a result, the House's only option is to take it or leave it.
	A few weeks ago, the Leader of the House kindly said that she would consider the suggestion that, as well as the Welsh day debate in March, which is now well established, and the debate on women's issues, which is well established and coincides approximately with international women's day, we have a debate on the role of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth priorities to coincide with Commonwealth day in March. I should be grateful if she confirmed, before the House breaks for half-term, that that will be possible. I am sure that it would be welcomed, not least given events in places such as Kenya.
	Yesterday, the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons was published. It contained a horrifying statistic—a 40 per cent. increase in suicides in prisons—and criticised much of current policy. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would greatly support an early debate on the report to help the Government to get the policy right, rather than set out on a policy and then be told by an inspector that it is not doing what it should do.
	Two days ago, a report by an assiduous and esteemed national newspaper journalist stated that there will soon be a White Paper on proposed changes to Law Officers' functions and the inter-relationship of Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is a highly controversial and important matter, not least as evidenced by the previous Attorney-General agreeing to the discontinuance of proceedings against BAE. Will the Leader of the House undertake that we will have an early opportunity to debate that and that there will not be further leaks of what the White Paper might say before it is published?

Harriet Harman: The way in which the House deals with the important issue of local government restructuring orders takes account of the approach taken by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are taking on the Floor of the House next week and the week after the House returns from the recess two issues in relation to two counties.
	On the procedure for dealing with treaties, we have a Bill that enacts a treaty and we have sought with the latest Bill to give as much time as possible to deal—[Hon. Members: "Not enough."] Hon. Members say, "Not enough", but we have afforded the Committee stage of that Bill more days of debate than were afforded to the Nice treaty, the Amsterdam treaty and the European— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the House speak. That is the best thing to do. The Leader of the House cannot speak if the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) interrupts her.

Harriet Harman: We have afforded this House more days of debate in Committee on that Bill than were afforded the Nice treaty, the Amsterdam treaty and the Single European Act put together. We have given many days of debate on that.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Welsh day and international women's day and asked about Commonwealth day. I shall consider whether that matter should be the subject of a topical debate.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the worrying issue of suicide in prisons. I recognise that that concern is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I notice that there are, on motions for the Adjournment of the House, debates next Monday on an inspectorate of prisons report and next Thursday on suicide prevention strategies. The House seeks to debate that matter regularly.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the functions of the Law Officers. He will remember that, in his statement on the governance of Britain, the Prime Minister undertook to consider reform of the Law Officers' functions. There has been a discussion and consultation, and when proposals are made on that important issue they will be brought before the House.

Geraldine Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware that there have been many debates on the Post Office in recent times, but I am particularly concerned about the recent Post Office consultation on the closures. I would like a debate on that, or at least I would like her to pass my concerns on to the relevant Minister. I received a letter from Richard Lynds, who is the network development manager for the Post Office. When I tried to contact him about the changes, I was given a call centre. No one knew who he was. When I contacted the chairman's office, I found that he had gone on holiday during the consultation period. It is not good enough. The nearest post office to Nether Kellet, one of the post offices in my constituency, is two miles away. It is on a road where there is no footpath. Pensioners could not even walk to it. They would have to change buses to get there. This is really unacceptable.

Harriet Harman: I shall raise my hon. Friend's account of the unsatisfactory way in which the consultation has operated in respect of a post office in her constituency with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. We must ensure that, if at any stage a Government Department or agency engages in consultation, it is genuine consultation; otherwise it is worse than simply taking the decision itself. The last thing people want is to be told that they are being consulted and then not be consulted at all.

Richard Shepherd: At the heart of the problems that we have experienced this week, which must not continue from now on, is the Government's savage guillotine of the Committee stage of the European treaty Bill. We have had only four hours of debate on the Committee stage to date. It is guillotined so savagely that the borders, visas, asylum and immigration parts of the home affairs provisions that the Government graciously gave to the House were not debated.

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman was not there.

Richard Shepherd: I was most certainly there. The Leader of the House, in whose name this atrocious motion was tabled, has bound the ability of the Speaker to protect the interests of the House in discussing something of constitutional importance, which is necessarily debated on the Floor of the House in detail. That has been denied to the House. It is traducing parliamentary democracy. It is even worse than the day when the Government deemed a Bill to have been considered when it had not been.

Harriet Harman: We have sought to provide adequate debating time for the House. The hon. Gentleman will know, of course, that the Bill enacts the treaty. We wanted to ensure that the house has an opportunity to debate not only the clauses of the Bill and the amendments that have been selected by Mr. Speaker but the substance of the treaty that the Bill brings into force. That is why we have proposed that there should be an opportunity to debate the substance of the treaty at the same time as discussing amendments to the individual clauses.
	As for the guillotine, I would say only that the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 was guillotined on 1 July 1986. The motion was proposed by a Leader of the House whom many of us think was a great Leader of the House: John Biffen. I know that the hon. Gentleman is consistent in these matters, so I imagine that he opposed that as well.

Richard Shepherd: indicated assent.

Harriet Harman: I see that the hon. Gentleman did so.
	We must ensure that we have enough time to scrutinise not only the clauses and the amendments but the treaty that the clauses bring into effect.
	I did not fully respond to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). He stated that the difficulty is that by the time a treaty that has been negotiated and committed to by the Government comes before the House, it is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
	That is a difficulty facing all Governments and legislatures, but he proposes that we consider whether there might be a different way to do things, as did the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) yesterday in the Modernisation Committee.

Gordon Prentice: May I take my friend to early-day motion 826, which is on the Order Paper in my name?
	 [ That this House notes with grave concern the plight of scores of people who have received multiple penalty notices couched in the most threatening terms from Effective Car Park Management (ECPM) for allegedly parking without authorisation on private land at the Lomeshaye Business Village in Pendle owned by Bizspace; notes that ECPM is registered at Companies House as MJB Car Park Management but that neither company is registered with the umbrella trade association for the parking enforcement industry, the British Parking Association; acknowledges that only members of the British Parking Association can request and receive data electronically from the Driver and Vehicle Licens i ng Agency (DVLA); is astonished to learn that the DVLA has been supplying Matthew Brough, the owner of ECPM, with personal data from the DVLA database  on the grounds that the company' s request is made by paper and not electronically and calls on the Government to close this loophole without delay; further believes that Bizspace should terminate its contract with Matthew Brough forth with; and considers that Brough' s business practices are wholly unacceptable and that he is a cheat and a fraudster and that the debt collectors mentioned in the parking tickets have no rights of entry or rights to seize goods and that anyone with a ticket who believes they have been entrapped by Brough should refuse to pay and insist on the matter going before the courts. ]
	Does my friend share my astonishment that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is giving out personal details from its database to shady operators and crooks such as Matthew Brough from Effective Car Park Management, who is stinging and fleecing my constituents by clamping their cars and trying to extort huge sums of money from people who unwittingly park on private land? It is a serious matter; I expect a serious reply.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises two important issues. The first is bogus clamping, which is being looked into by the Department for Transport, as is the regulatory regime by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. We all want traffic to move freely—we do not want random parking in breach of the law clogging up the roads—but we also do not want cowboys ripping people off by clamping their cars, sometimes leaving them very vulnerable and isolated as a result of not being able to drive away. He also raises the question of the use of data, which will come within the purview of the data review set up by the Cabinet Office.

Peter Lilley: In compensation for the breach of his solemn promise to grant the British people a referendum on the treaty incorporating the substance of the European constitution, the Prime Minister made a further promise that this House would be able in Committee to consider that treaty line by line. Will the Leader of the House confirm that under the present timetable, no Committee consideration will be given to items in the treaty relating to immigration, asylum and border controls? Not a single amendment and not a single line of the treaty relating to those matters will be considered in Committee by this House. Is it her intention thereby to breach that promise by the Prime Minister as well? The one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries should be brief. We are getting into speeches; we have had a few this morning. Some of them were very nice, but they should not be speeches.

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I could remind the House that we had six hours of debate—

Peter Lilley: Not in Committee.

Harriet Harman: If I could just finish, we had six hours of debate on how the House would handle the Bill—six hours of debate in which all Members had an opportunity to raise questions on the procedure for dealing with the Bill, followed by a vote. It has been decided how the Bill should be scrutinised by the House, and we are following through on that procedure.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there is a great deal of concern about the Law Lords' decision on 17 October regarding pleural plaques. They have deemed that pleural plaques, which are caused by exposure to asbestos, are not compensatable. She will also have seen the two early-day motions, 812 and 815, which stand in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) respectively, and which ask for remedy.
	 [ That this House recognises the anguish that has been caused by the failure of the House of Lords to overturn the Court of Appeal decision that prevents sufferers of pleural plaques from claiming compensation on the grounds of negligence; notes that there are thousands of sufferers in former industrial heartlands such as the North East who have been left without the compensation they deserve; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to ensure those suffering from pleural plaques receive justice. ]
	 [ That this House calls on the Government to explore every avenue possible to reverse the recent decision of the Law Lords which has denied compensation to the victims of asbestosis pleural plaques. ]
	Will she consider a debate, perhaps a topical debate, on pleural plaques, and will she convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice that the issue needs to be remedied in this place?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will know that much has been done on the question of those who suffer horrible and debilitating respiratory disease as a result of work that they have undertaken, and those who have lost their lives as a result of contracting such diseases, because he has raised the issues in the House and caused progress to be made on just compensation. As for his further question, the Prime Minister is considering it with Ministers. If further proposals are made, they will no doubt be brought to the House.

Alistair Carmichael: Might we have an urgent debate or statement on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which is the subject of a number of reports today? There has been one from Oxfam, and one in  The Times concerning the possibility of military training. I draw the Leader of the House's attention particularly to the front page of  The Independent today, which highlights the case of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, a journalism student who is apparently facing the death penalty, after having had very little by way of a fair trial and being denied independent legal representation, for the crime of downloading and distributing a report on the oppression of women. Surely, given our current involvement in that country, the Government must have a view on the situation. Surely we will not just sit back and allow that monstrous act to take place without doing anything about it.

Harriet Harman: There is concern at all times about the situation in Afghanistan; indeed, the issue was raised yesterday during Prime Minister's questions. The Government are determined to stand up for human rights, including freedom of speech, in all countries, and are of course concerned about the matter.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that there are many children in care establishments throughout Great Britain. We have a serious shortage of foster parents, and many children remain in care establishments until the age of 16, when they are deemed adults who can be independent. It is a serious situation. They are our tomorrows—children who will define Great Britain. The issue is important enough for the Government to have a debate on it. They must have a view about how the situation can be repaired.

Harriet Harman: There is concern in Government that we should do more for those children who are most dependent on the state and who often appear to be most failed by it, namely children taken into care. She will know of the strategy for children in care, which started in the Department for Education and Skills, and of the work being taken forward in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I will draw her comments to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

James Clappison: A short question on the European Union (Amendment) Bill: does the imagination of the Leader of the House stretch so far as to say that what has taken place to date amounts to detailed, line-by-line consideration of the contents of the Bill and the treaty? Yes or no will do as an answer.

Harriet Harman: Yes.

Don Touhig: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on Network Rail and the delay in running trains from the Ebbw valley to Newport? When the line eventually opens, trains will run to Cardiff but not Newport. Network Rail says that it is because major investment in signalling is needed, yet my constituents Mrs. Ruth Gray and Mr. Ted Beacham and my local paper, the  South Wales Argus, say that freight trains are running on the line, and indeed that trains used for driver training in the Ebbw valley all come out of Newport. A debate would at least give us the opportunity to find out what is really going on.

Harriet Harman: I will consider that as a question for debate, but I will also raise my right hon. Friend's comments, and his concern for his constituents and the important matter of their transport access, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

George Young: The Leader of the House has announced motions for debate next Thursday relating to European scrutiny reform. Is she aware that this morning, the Liaison Committee discussed those proposals and registered deep anxiety about aspects of them? Will she now respect the Liaison Committee's request that next Thursday those motions be not moved?

Harriet Harman: The question of European scrutiny by the House is a matter for the whole House, rather than for Government policy. We know that we have to improve the way that the House scrutinises European legislation. We undertook to see whether we could come up with a better process of scrutiny to bring back to the House to debate and to decide upon. We need to do that as soon as we can because the old rules under which we have been operating run out three months after the time when we decided to review them, so we face some time constraints. Above all, we want to reach agreement across the House on the matter. I shall therefore consider how to respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised on behalf of the Liaison Committee. We want to get something that everyone agrees is an improvement on the way that we currently scrutinise European business.

Ann Cryer: Would it be possible to have an early debate on the explicable reluctance of senior schools to display and distribute information and advice on the avoidance of forced marriages to their students? Last summer, the Department for Education and Skills sent round some good guidelines on the subject, which seem to have been ignored.

Harriet Harman: I will bring the issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Perhaps Ofsted can shed some light on the matter. We need to be sure that all children in every school get the highest quality teaching, education and information.

John Bercow: May we please have a statement on the intended programming of the Report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill? Given that criticism was expressed in some quarters about the limited scope for parliamentary scrutiny of the sexual orientation regulations and of the new offence of incitement to homophobic hate crime, both of which Government measures I enthusiastically supported, may I suggest to the Leader of the House that it is in the Government's interest, in Parliament's interest and, above all, in the public interest that when the Report stage of the Bill takes place, she should err on the side of generosity in ensuring that all points of view on the controversial features of the Bill are comprehensively aired?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has been drawn to my attention by a number of Members in all parts of the House. We have all been impressed by the way that the House of Lords has dealt with the Bill and discussed it in an informed and responsible way. I intend to ensure that we have sufficient time for a serious and good debate on that important measure in this House.

Gwyn Prosser: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the failures of the Tory-controlled South East England regional assembly to address major transport problems in east Kent, in particular its failure to designate Dover as a regional transport hub, and the failure to dual the last few miles of the A2, which is the road to the busiest ferry port in the world?

Harriet Harman: I will bring my hon. Friend's comments on transport, which is very important indeed to his constituents, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Nicholas Winterton: Successive Leaders of the House have promised me and the House that there would be a further debate on the tragic situation in Zimbabwe. Elections are due in that country shortly. This is absolutely the right time that the House should express its views on that tragedy. Will the Leader of the House accept a request from me to have even a short debate—a topical debate—on the subject next week or as soon as there is time for it?

Harriet Harman: I accept that request for a debate. I know that there is support from Members in all parts of the House for the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Jim Devine: May we have a debate in Government time about the behaviour of Britain's six leading energy companies, which at a time of making record profits are increasing prices by eight, nine and even 10 times the rate of inflation? We are capping public sector workers' pay in the fight against inflation. It is time we capped those price increases as well.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will know, as the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, that there is a concern about increasing energy costs on the back of increasing fuel prices. The regulator is required to look at that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have dramatically increased the winter fuel payments and we are moving forward on the matter of insulation. We want to ensure that despite the increasing price of oil and gas, people can afford to keep their homes warm.

Stewart Hosie: The Treasury yesterday published a consultation document on financial stability and protecting depositors. It contains a large number of suggestions for consultation, including proposals that would mean a swingeing reduction in transparency by the Bank of England in the case of its offering support to another failing bank. Notwithstanding the merits or demerits of that case, the consultation was issued without an oral statement and there has been no opportunity yet to probe the Chancellor or the Government about their thinking on that matter. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to make an oral statement on the new consultation in good time before the end of the consultation period in three months, so that those in the House and outside can take on board the Government's thinking when finalising their submissions to the report?

Harriet Harman: No doubt the hon. Gentleman can contribute to the consultation along the lines that he set out in his comments, and no doubt they will be considered.
	On the subject of the economy, we usually hear a great deal of doom and gloom from the Opposition. I take the opportunity to welcome the 800 new jobs in Nissan in the north-east, and congratulate all those in the Nissan team who were involved in bringing those jobs to the north-east.

Ann Coffey: Two weeks ago I visited Stockport academy to see the progress of the new £27 million building. I was struck by the enthusiasm of the students for their new school, which has had an impact on attendance and behaviour. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make time for a debate so that I can persuade the Minister for Schools and Learners to include more Stockport schools in the Government's successful Building Schools for the Future programme?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the Stockport academy and the schools in Stockport on whose behalf my hon. Friend speaks. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to put those points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families at oral questions next Monday.

Standards and Privileges

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House—
	(i) approves the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 280);
	(ii) endorses the recommendations in paragraphs 33, 34 and 36; and
	(iii) accordingly suspends Mr Derek Conway from the service of the House for a period of ten sitting days.— [Ms Harman.]

Harriet Harman: It is always highly regrettable when the House has to debate a motion of this kind. The matter has come to the House after a full process of investigation and consideration by a recognised due process. The Committee on Standards and Privileges, following the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, published on Monday its fourth report of this Session, entitled "Conduct of Mr. Derek Conway".
	The Government have arranged this debate at the earliest practicable time. The debate will consider the case in the context of the standards of conduct that are set out by the House and that the public who elect us expect us all to uphold. The matters before us have been investigated by the Commissioner and then considered by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I thank the former commissioner, Sir Philip Mawer, for his work and commitment to this, his last inquiry. I also thank the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and all hon. Members who served on that Committee for their work on behalf of the House. It is very important work.
	The Committee has concluded that there has been a failure to meet the standards expected and the Committee regarded the conduct as
	"a serious breach of the rules".
	The motion before the House today approves the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, endorses the recommendations of the Committee and proposes suspension for 10 days. I ask the House to support the motion.

George Young: My Committee's report, which forms the basis for this debate, was published at 11 o'clock on Monday. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), the subject of the report, came to the House that afternoon to make his personal statement. He said that he accepted our criticisms in full and unreservedly apologised. That prompt admission, which I welcome, will hopefully enable the House to agree to the three-paragraph motion on the Order Paper.
	This report on the hon. Gentleman's conduct has evoked considerable interest and comment both inside and outside the House. Some of the comment has related to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had previously employed his elder son as a research assistant. The complaint from Mr. Barnbrook related to the employment of the hon. Gentleman's younger son, and the commissioner's investigation focused solely on that. Complaints have now been made to the commissioner about the employment of his elder son; under our rules, those complaints fall to the commissioner to consider.
	In the past few days, my Committee has been accused of being both a kangaroo court and a gentleman's club. In my view, both accusations are wide of the mark. At the heart of our system for dealing with complaints such as this one is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—an independent officer, appointed by the House, who investigates specific complaints about Members' conduct. Before submitting a report to the Committee, the commissioner shares the factual sections of that report with the Member who is the subject of the complaint and makes any mutually agreed factual corrections. Having received the commissioner's report, the Committee shares it in its entirety, including the commissioner's conclusions, with the Member concerned, and invites his or her observations—written, oral or both. It does so before it enters into any consideration of the commissioner's report. Before the Committee reaches its conclusions, any evidence that the Member gives is carefully weighed alongside the commissioner's report and any other evidence.
	Having chaired the Committee since 2001, I can testify to the fact that the Committee approaches the task of judging colleagues conscientiously and in an entirely non-partisan way. We strive to be fair to the House, which has asked us to enforce its rules, and we strive to be fair to the Member before us and to the public interest. In this case, as in all the others that I have brought to the House, our recommendations were unanimous. All 10 members of the Committee took part in the proceedings, and I am grateful to them for the way in which they handled this case.
	As the record shows, the Committee has made tough recommendations to the House when, as in this case, they are justified. To those who say that the punishments that the House imposes on those who break its rules are disproportionately light, I would only add that, as this case and others before it have demonstrated, the reputational consequences of our reports can be fatal. I therefore reject any suggestion that the Committee is either a kangaroo court or a gentleman's club. Our procedures are fair and transparent, and our judgments can have serious and far-reaching consequences for those who have breached the rules. Both the commissioner and the Committee approached this case just as they would any other. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the courtesy with which the commissioner treated him and has acknowledged that the Committee offered him every opportunity to explain his position.
	As the Leader of the House said, this was the last case reported on by the previous commissioner, Sir Philip Mawer, and I thank him once again for his characteristically thorough examination of this matter and clear recommendations to the Committee. His report speaks for itself.
	At the heart of this case was whether Freddie Conway was appropriately remunerated for the tasks that he was required to perform, and whether the work was actually carried out. The commissioner concluded that Freddie's rate of pay was unjustifiably high given his qualifications and experience, and that, on the balance of probabilities, he did not need consistently to work his full contracted hours to complete his work. The commissioner also found that bonus payments had been made in excess of the permitted levels. My Committee endorsed those conclusions. Given some of the press comment, however, I should stress that neither the commissioner nor the Committee asserts that Freddie Conway did no work for his father.
	A difficulty for the commissioner and my Committee in this case has been the virtually complete absence of evidence of the work that Freddie Conway actually performed, not least when he was at university in Newcastle. The Committee made it clear that it was not for the hon. Gentleman to establish his innocence, but frankly we were astonished that after three years and a substantial amount of expenditure, there was no independent evidence of Freddie's output—nor, apparently, could anyone outside the family be found who had seen him working. As the Committee commented on a case in 2004:
	"It is...Members' responsibility to ensure that, if requested, they can properly justify any use of voted money, in the same way as any other recipient."
	The hon. Gentleman has admitted that he failed to keep adequate records, and has apologised for his failure to do so. It is also common ground that bonus payments were made that exceeded the authorised ceiling.
	What was the hon. Gentleman's defence to the commissioner's conclusions about the level of his son's salary? In essence, he consistently maintained that, as his son's salary was within the Department of Resources' approved scale, he was entitled to set it at his discretion. The Committee rejected that argument. The salary scale, at the time of the original appointment, ranged from £12,184 to £29,353. Given the extent of that range, the Committee did not believe, as a matter of principle, that Members' discretion could be regarded as completely unfettered. A judgment is clearly called for.
	The question that we had to address was whether the hon. Gentleman had exercised his judgment sufficiently unreasonably for the payments to constitute improper use of the staffing allowance. The Committee concluded that it did. Freddie Conway was just 19, had just left school following his A-levels and had no experience. Department of Finance and Administration guidance would have suggested a salary at, or close to, the recommended London entry point of £16,614 full-time. Yet Freddie's father, by his own admission, took no account of that, and paid him the full-time equivalent of £25,970. The Committee took the view that that was an improper use of the allowance.
	Taking all this together, the Committee has made three recommendations that it is asking the House to approve today. The first is that the hon. Gentleman reimburse the House for the sums overpaid to his son by way of bonus. That is the recommendation in paragraph 33 of the report. The second, set out in paragraph 34, is that the hon. Gentleman reimburse the House £6,000 in recognition of the over-generous salary paid to his son. The Committee considered that, whatever other action the House took, some recompense for the sum improperly paid out would be appropriate. For the reasons set out in paragraph 34 of the report, it proposes a payment of £6,000 by the hon. Gentleman in recognition of that. Finally, in recognition of the overall seriousness of this case, the Committee recommends that the hon. Gentleman be suspended from the service of the House for 10 sitting days.
	There are two other matters on which I wish to touch briefly before I conclude. The first is the speculation that the Committee or the House should refer this matter to the police for investigation. As the House will know, Members of Parliament enjoy no general immunity from the criminal law; anyone can refer a matter to the police for investigation at any time, if they have evidence to suggest that a criminal offence has been committed. Both the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and my Committee consider, if necessary after taking legal advice, whether there is sufficient evidence to justify our doing so in any particular case in the light of all the relevant facts. On the other hand, there is no reason, as I am sure the House will agree, for either the Committee or the commissioner to adopt automatically a presumption that a Member who is the subject of a complaint may have committed a criminal offence. The Committee was satisfied on all the evidence before it that reporting to the House, rather than referral to the police, was the right way forward in this case.
	The second matter is whether Members should continue to be permitted to employ relatives, or others with whom they have other than an arm's length relationship. At this point, I say to the House—and, indeed, to all the newspapers who have been ringing up since Monday—that I employ a member of my family, who is remunerated out of my parliamentary allowance. That is a debate for another day, along with a debate about what steps the House needs to take to address the reputational damage that this case has done.
	In the meantime, I just say to the House that Members' use of allowances is a perennially sensitive issue and that allegations of real or perceived misuse are damaging. This is money that our constituents have paid for through their taxes. It is important that Members can demonstrate robustly, if challenged, that their use of allowances is above reproach, particularly where they have a relationship with the employee that might suggest an element of personal benefit. We should set ourselves similar requirements to those that we would expect of others responsible for the expenditure of public money, as a predecessor Committee suggested in 2003. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has paid the price for overlooking that principle. I commend the motion to the House.

Frank Field: I should like to support the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in respect of the motion and to draw some general points from his report, as he did. I do so knowing that while we may individually be held in very high esteem by our constituents, collectively that is not so; it is difficult to think how much lower our collective reputation might sink among voters generally.
	There are at least four lessons to draw from this report. The first concerns the punishment. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that other events had come into play and that it was difficult to think of a more severe punishment, but the Committee has been more severe on other Members in other reports, and those Members go around this place as happy as Larry. One of the lessons that I hope that the Committee will think about, not as regards specific cases but generally as regards its policy, is whether our series of punishments is adequate. If this example of what I would see as embezzlement had occurred on this scale in, say, the Refreshment Department, we would expect the person involved to leave the employment of this establishment on the day it was discovered. I believe that we should treat ourselves in a similar manner to how other people employed by this House would be treated.
	Secondly, I want to make a plea about the employment of family members. I do so as somebody with no immediate family and so with no vested interest. The circumstances of Members of Parliament and those whom they employ are unique. We work on at least two sites over peculiar hours. I hope that there will be no rush by Members of this House to change the arrangements whereby family members can be employed if they are employed properly. It is proper for us to be clear about expenditure, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said, and it is not improper for us to agree that if family members are employed we can at least present to the Fees Office evidence that they have the qualifications for those jobs. However, given the arguments that I have heard, I would be against changing the rules about Members employing members of their families.
	The third lesson concerns audit. I am amazed that the only case that has been put up against audit is based on the sovereignty of Parliament. Our constituents must give a hollow laugh at that when they witness how we have conceded our powers to check—not defeat, but check—the Executive and how we have allowed powers to go willy-nilly from this place to Brussels. There is no comparison between that movement of sovereignty out of this Chamber and the wish that our expenses should be properly audited. It is proper that as events change we should be prepared to consider the case put to us that our expenses should be properly audited.
	My last point is about the balance between our salaries and expenses. I have been in the House for long enough to know Members who were here under the Wilson Government. At that time there was wage restraint for the population as a whole, which was applied to us. Members reported to me that the then Chief Whip went round the Tea Room saying to people, "You can vote for the wage restriction on your pay because we're adjusting allowances—you get the message, don't you?" The balance between our allowances and our salary is out of kilter. I do not think that our allowances are improper given the job that we are expected to do, but when we ask an outside body to look at our pay, we should be mindful of the fact that although we are overpaid in the eyes of many of our constituents, given their wages, we are certainly not overpaid compared with the responsibilities that we hold and the pay of people with comparable responsibilities elsewhere.
	To sum up, first, I question whether the punishment in such cases is adequate. Secondly, I make a plea for the employment of family members. If we did not abide by that, how would we treat partners differently? Would we have some sort of co-habitation rules—and if so, who would we ask to enforce them? The situation would become absurd. I hope that we will consider carefully how we shall audit our expenses. Behind all this—the tension that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire alluded to—is the extraordinary position that we now find ourselves in whereby our allowances are considerably greater than our basic pay.

Theresa May: As the Leader of the House made clear, this matter comes before us following the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards and Privileges Committee. I join her in thanking the former parliamentary commissioner for his work. I also thank the members of the Committee for their work, which they carry out diligently on behalf of this House and in the best interests of this House.
	I endorse the recommendations made by the Standards and Privileges Committee and support the motion tabled by the Leader of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) described in some detail the Committee's recommendations and said a little about its investigations. It did indeed find that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) had "misused the Staffing Allowance" and
	"also seemed to be oblivious to the broader reputational risks to the House of any perception of personal benefit to his family."
	All Members of this House should remember that in using public funds we have a duty to ensure that we use those funds properly and within the rules set. The Committee's report also makes it clear how important it is for Members to recognise the impact of the behaviour of an individual Member on the reputation not only of MPs or politicians generally but on the reputation of this House. As the Committee said:
	"Members' use of allowances is a perennially sensitive issue, and allegations of real or perceived misuse risk damage to the reputation of the House as an institution, as well as to the personal reputation of individual Members."
	Our behaviour, how we conduct ourselves, and how we use public money do not matter only for us as individuals or for political parties; they matter because they affect the views that people have of this institution. It behoves all of us to remember that in all that we do, we carry not just our own reputations but the reputation of this House. I support the motion.

David Winnick: It is a difficult matter for a Committee to pass judgment on a fellow Member, even more so in cases where the Member belongs to the same political party as oneself. The Committee has carried out its work with the usual integrity that we expect, and we are grateful for its report. I have no criticism whatsoever of the manner in which it set about its work.
	This case understandably gives rise to concerns about how our expenses are claimed. Perhaps some hon. Members will feel that the criticism being voiced in the press is without any reason or justification, and that the media misunderstand all about our expenses. We are not crooks; we are honest, and when someone makes claims unfairly and breaks the rules, we see what happens. Indeed, we would not want to go through what the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) rightly went through on Monday. Whether there should be a more severe punishment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, is a matter of opinion.
	The process is lacking at the moment, in that there is insufficient transparency. Yes, money is claimed for perfectly legitimate reasons; I have no doubts about that. But that is not the view of the public. It may be that there is a lack of understanding on the part of the public about what expenses are for. I have said previously that I do not pay expenses to my secretary; I pay her a salary, and I do the same for my assistant in the constituency office. Nevertheless, the question arises whether there is a better way of ensuring that the public can to some extent be satisfied that the money that can be claimed, which is a very large sum—more than £144,000 excluding travel expenses—is spent in the manner that we would expect of other organisations. We expect those bodies to have the transparency and control that we, perhaps, do not.
	We are constantly preaching to other organisations about how important it is for proper controls to be in place where public money is concerned—but that practice seems to be lacking on our own part. The situation is even more annoying, because we are honest. We claim money that we believe to be absolutely essential for the carrying out of our parliamentary duties. I do not know whether everyone does, but I welcome the fact that each year the amount claimed is published—a state of affairs that arises from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would be appalling if we did otherwise.
	However, questions have been raised. For example, the Senior Salaries Review Body has suggested that the National Audit Office should take a random sample of a number of claims. I know that that idea is being looked into, but why should that not happen? What possible criticism could we have of that idea if we are claiming money properly and legitimately according to the rules, as we say we are? Why should the NAO not be involved? I do not understand why there should be any reluctance on our part about that.
	I do not employ any of my relatives, but I see no reason why there should be a ban on a partner or a relative being employed, as long as everything is above board—as, in the unfortunate case we are discussing at the moment, it was not. I am against such a ban, but would it not be right, without going to extremes, to say that any partner or relative employed should be listed in the Register of Members' Interests? If the arrangement is above board, it is nothing to be ashamed about. If X employs his or her partner, it would be revealed in the register. I do not see why that should be a problem.
	I shall conclude on this note. I do not altogether agree with the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that our reputation is at rock bottom. That could have been said for centuries. Much of the criticism of our work is wrong and misplaced. However, it is in our own interest and for the good of our reputation that the manner in which we claim public money be shown to be transparent and justified, and the necessary controls be in place. I am not satisfied that they currently are, and I hope that this case means that changes and reforms that help the reputation of the House of Commons will take place.

Simon Hughes: As the Leader of the House said, these are always difficult moments for us as a House. That is right, and we should be careful in our response to such matters.
	I support the motion tabled in the name of the Leader of the House, and I will invite my colleagues to do the same. I join her and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in thanking and paying tribute to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee, who do a very difficult job exceptionally well, with discretion, courtesy and the proper propriety. That is important.
	You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that last week we debated the Senior Salaries Review Body report. Apart from colleagues who served on the Standards and Privileges Committee, none of us had knowledge at that point of what was to be published this week. That demonstrates the proper way in which such matters should be handled. The work was done by the Committee, it was published when the Committee was ready, and only then did it receive publicity. I too give thanks to the previous commissioner for his work, and I welcome his successor. Such jobs are very important, and the procedure works well. There is no criticism of the procedure involved, and if it errs on the side of caution, that is right. It should always presume people to be innocent unless the evidence proves otherwise.
	In your earlier statement, Mr. Speaker, you reminded us that you had already considered the decisions we took last Thursday. At that time, we put forward three specific matters for a group of colleagues chaired by you to reflect upon, one of which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
	We asked for further consideration to be given to a lower limit on Members' unreceipted expenditure; there was all-party agreement on that. The SSRB proposed that the limit should be £50, and my colleagues and I support that. We urge the Members Estimate Committee and the advisory panel on Members' allowances to agree to that change as soon as possible; I hope that it will be agreed by 1 April so that it can come into force at the beginning of the next financial year.
	The second matter—this was the one referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall, North—was the SSRB recommendation that the National Audit Office should have the power to audit a selection of Members all the time. In other words, there should be spot checks; any of us would be aware that we might be audited at any time. I support that, and so do my colleagues. I hope that the House authorities can bring back that recommendation for agreement in this House, so that it takes effect from 1 April. Such a move would allow spot checks every year on a random cross-section of colleagues in the House.
	Thirdly, we asked the authorities to consider recognising partners who are sole beneficiaries as having the same rights for pension purposes as spouses and civil partners. In other words, people who are recognised as partners should have recognised status.
	Arising from that, I would like to make two points about families. There seems to be a perfectly legitimate case for allowing colleagues who are married or have recognised partners to work with their partners. I speak as someone who is not in that position, so I am not speaking from self-interest. The job that someone does, working with a person to serve their constituents, can often best be done in a similar way to how things operate in a small business, for example.
	However, if there is to be continuing acceptance of family members working for colleagues, there is not a strong case for more than one member of the family doing that, or for their being paid more than the going rate for the job, as recommended in the rules we set ourselves—within the parameters referred to by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, such as competence, age and experience. We clearly cannot make current or past arrangements suddenly illegal if people have made a commitment through a contract to a member of their family. Provided that they follow the rules properly, that situation must be allowed to continue. For the future, however, there seems be a case for allowing only one family member to be employed, and at the right rate for the job.
	Confidentiality for the people whom we employ concerns many hon. Members. Until the previous Parliament, my friend Nigel Jones—now Lord Jones of Cheltenham—sat on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the House of Commons. He suffered a terrible injury and witnessed the death in his constituency office of a person whom he employed, and who was working at the time on constituency matters. I know of other colleagues and their staff who are currently under threat from members of the public, and who are being supported by the police. Indeed, in the past the Leader of the House has been in that position, as have I.
	We must therefore be careful about separating the proper accountability of Members of Parliament for public money and the way in which it is spent—for example, by declaring that we use our £90,000 to pay the wages of two, three or four members of staff—from putting the names of all those people in the public domain and identifying them as working for us. Doing the latter would mean that their addresses and their families could also be in the public domain. Members' staff are not in the same position as others who are paid from the public purse, because they are especially exposed. I have been in my surgery with people working for me, some paid and some volunteering, who have been put in difficult positions, with angry, aggressive and unstable constituents. Many colleagues from all parties have been in the same position.
	I support the Committee's careful and considered findings and I believe that the recommendations are right. We all have a duty to ensure that we spend every penny of public money properly. I hope that we can agree to the audit proposals and the lower maximum expense allowance without receipts soon, and that we will be careful when we determine whom we employ, and consider the implications.
	For all such people other than a spouse or registered partner, we should, in 2008, apply full proper employment practice. We should give people of all backgrounds equal opportunities to work for us. If we do not, we shall be reinforcing the traditional white male-dominated society that pertains here, because there are more white men than other colleagues in this place. I hope that modern employment law will work, and that people whom the taxpayer and Members of Parliament employ will be recruited openly. I also hope that they will be employed in a way that employment law will ensure is entirely justified in future.

Peter Bottomley: I believe that the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will meet with more cross-party agreement than the latter part.
	I want to make three points. First, when I became a Member of Parliament, I tried to follow the advice of always applying the local newspaper test, which is: am I doing something that I would not want to read in my local newspaper? If the answer is yes, I should either admit to it or not do it. That does not mean that one cannot do unpopular or unwise things, but at least they should not be done secretly.
	Secondly, I believe that if Ministers' names and private offices are published in directories and people know who our children are when they are at school or college, we should not be too prissy about including the names of those who work for us on letterheads. If they work with us and engage with the outside world, they should not hide their names. I therefore do not go along with the final remarks of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey.
	Thirdly, the view of some outside that we should not employ members of our families or household is wrong. When I first stood for election in 1974, it was against a Labour Member of Parliament who was over 60 and had moved in with his competent secretary as her spouse. The idea that she would have to find some other Member of Parliament for whom to work because they had got together and lived in the same place is absurd.
	The report and the commissioner's findings were based on the balance of probability. The Committee should have applied that standard eight years ago. I am glad that it has now adopted it and that leaks, which are often distorting and issued for partisan or personal reasons, of conclusions of Committee reports no longer occur.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House—
	(i) approves the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 280);
	(ii) endorses the recommendations in paragraphs 33, 34 and 36; and
	(iii) accordingly suspends Mr Derek Conway from the service of the House for a period of ten sitting days.

Topical debate
	 — 
	Holocaust Memorial Day

Parmjit Dhanda: I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of Holocaust memorial day.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) for suggesting this important and timely debate. His long-standing commitment to countering racism and intolerance is well known to those of us who have known him for many years. I am also grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for allowing the subject to be chosen today.
	The Government's commitment to promoting the aims and objectives of Holocaust memorial day is shared by hon. Members of all parties, and I commend that. Today's debate is a valuable opportunity to demonstrate our strong and enduring commitment to holocaust remembrance. The lessons of the holocaust continue to be relevant to British society.

Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the events held in the House—I went to two—and those in our constituencies, which are becoming more frequent, are valuable, have growing support and are increasingly effective in communicating the message about learning the lessons of what was done in the past, which we hope, pray and work to ensure will not happen in future.

Parmjit Dhanda: I entirely agree, and I will shortly speak about not only national and international events, but the increase in local events, which is largely due to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. It does an excellent job.
	The holocaust is one of the most tragic events in human history. Its lessons are of universal relevance and have implications for us all. People of all faiths, cultures and races were victims of the Nazis. I strongly believe that the holocaust must have a permanent place in our collective memory. It is essential that we continue to hear the voices of survivors not only for now but for the benefit of future generations.

Stewart Hosie: I have had the great privilege of sharing platforms with several holocaust survivors. Sadly, their numbers are dwindling; age is catching up with all of them. The Minister is right to say that their voices must continue to be heard. What might the Government be able to do in future when no one is left who has first-hand experience of the horror of the second world war?

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the past decade, it was therefore especially important to make the holocaust part of the curriculum at key stage 3. I hope that that work with the Department for Children, Schools and Families will make a difference in the longer term. The lessons that are passed down and the stories that are told at events such as the one in Liverpool at the weekend are also vital.

Bob Spink: The Under-Secretary talks about lessons being learned. Does he accept that events in the world show that lessons have not been learned? The raison d'être of Holocaust memorial day is learning lessons about genocide, yet actions are taking place throughout the world, such as in Burma, against ethnic groups. Does he believe that the international community, including this country and the United Nations, should lead the world in tackling the repression and genocide that continue to happen?

Parmjit Dhanda: The purpose of Holocaust memorial day is to learn and embed those lessons to make a difference for the future. As the hon. Gentleman says, we should learn the lessons for the future from man's inhumanity to man.
	With that in mind, the UK joined the Swedish and United States Governments in 1998 in establishing the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research. In January 2000, 44 Governments from around the world attended the Stockholm international forum on holocaust education, remembrance and research. All those present signed the Stockholm declaration. The principles agreed that day have since been adapted to form the statement of commitment that underpins our own Holocaust memorial day commemoration.
	This is probably an appropriate time for me to pay tribute to the work done by our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to ensure that Holocaust memorial day happened and to make the long-term commitment to it. He not only helped to bring in the commemoration, but made a commitment to ensure that it would last into the future.

Dari Taylor: Will my hon. Friend pay a resounding tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust? It takes young people from our schools on a year-by-year basis to Auschwitz and Birkenau, so that they can see the tyranny of evil that was perpetrated by the Nazi regime. The trust is a tremendous organisation that works assiduously to ensure that the young people in our communities know and do not forget.

Parmjit Dhanda: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Many of us in the House will have had the opportunity to visit Auschwitz with children from our local schools. I know that such visits have made a huge difference to the children around the country who have had the opportunity to see at first hand what happened in such places. The work of the trust is incredibly important, which is why we are backing it to the tune of about £1.5 million.
	The date for this important commemoration, 27 January, was chosen because it is the anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi extermination camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is a powerful symbol of the horrors of the holocaust. We promote the UK Holocaust memorial day at international and national levels and increasingly, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, at local level.
	Through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we work closely with our European and international partners to promote holocaust education and research. My Department, the Department for Communities and Local Government, provides £500,000 of annual core funding for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. This supports not only the holding of an annual national commemoration, but many of the local community activities. Five hundred local events have been held, and 23,000 people have already lit the virtual candle on the trust's website. Many hundreds of us, if not more, were in Hope street in Liverpool to light a candle on Sunday as well. The importance of actively engaging young people has already been pointed out, and as I have said, the Government provide £1.5 million of annual funding for the Holocaust Educational Trust to support the participation of two pupils from every school and college in visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau.
	I want to touch on last Sunday's national commemoration in Liverpool, which I had the privilege to attend, and which rightly included the experiences of those who had suffered persecution more recently, in the conflicts in Rwanda, Darfur and the former Yugoslavia. In addition to the national commemoration, the Liverpool organisers also succeeded in running an important series of events during the preceding fortnight. Those activities were hosted by local communities originating from as far afield as Chad, the Czech Republic, Darfur, Kosovo and Rwanda. I am sure that I have the backing of the whole House in commending Liverpool—the European city of culture—and, indeed, all the other cities and towns across the UK for their commitment to actively engaging their local communities and schools in marking this year's Holocaust memorial day. That is what Holocaust memorial day is, and should be, all about.
	In Liverpool, on Sunday, I had the privilege of sitting next to a gentleman whom I had never met before. His name was Martin Stern, and he had an extraordinary story to tell. He was born in the Netherlands in 1938. His father was a Jewish architect, whom his non-Jewish mother had married despite the Nazi Nuremberg laws. During the Nazi occupation of Holland, his father had hidden with the Dutch resistance. His father was captured, however, and sent first to Auschwitz and then to Buchenwald, where he was killed. By this time, Martin was about five years old. He had a younger sister, but after she was born, his mother died from a hospital infection.
	Martin Stern was taken in by a young Dutch couple, but they were soon arrested because Martin and his sister had been born of a Jewish parent. As a result, he was sent to the transit camp at Westerbork in the Netherlands and, later, with his one-year-old sister, to the Theresienstadt concentration camp in Czechoslovakia. He and his sister—a five-year-old and a one-year-old—were among the 150 children at the camp. I learned from Martin at the weekend that about 15,000 children entered concentration camps during the second world war. He is one of about 100 who survived that experience.
	Martin Stern and his younger sister were protected by a young woman in the concentration camp. She became like a mother to them, although when they were released, she was not allowed to look after them. He was reunited with her in the 1980s, and saw her before she passed away.
	The time that I spent talking to Martin before the commemoration provided me with the beginning of an understanding of what it must have been like to have experienced the horrors of the holocaust. Despite having had that experience, Martin had the resolve to make a new life in this country, and to become an eminent doctor here. His story, and those of others like him, must never be forgotten.

John Spellar: I thank the Minister for giving way. May I point out to him that my constituency is Warley? The old constituency of Warley, West was merged. He has spoken movingly of the testimony of survivors, but many of them are now passing away. Will he pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, and tell us what the Government can do to ensure that those testimonies are captured and kept so that future generations can understand the horrors of the holocaust?

Parmjit Dhanda: My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly good point. I join him in paying tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, as well as to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. They are doing a great deal of work in collecting information and stories. The day itself provided a great opportunity, and those of us who were in Liverpool learned a great deal from some of those personal testimonies. There must be opportunities for young people to visit not only Auschwitz but places such as Srebrenica, as some have as part of these trips, and to see the historical context and the stories associated with it. I hope that such visits will provide lasting memories that can be passed down the generations, because we must never forget the lessons of man's inhumanity to man.

Paul Goodman: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) on the part that he has played in ensuring that this topical debate could take place today. I should also like to say that the Minister's opening speech struck exactly the right note. Parts of it—the ending, in particular—were extremely moving.
	I have a personal interest in this debate, in a way, in that my family background is Jewish, although it is not the religion that I, in a flawed and faltering way, try to practise. I was not in Liverpool on Sunday, but my colleague, Baroness Warsi, the shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, was, as was my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who I see in his place; he was representing the leader of the Conservative party. I have been to Auschwitz-Birkenau and I have read some of the standard works on the holocaust. Although my family did not lose any of its members during the holocaust, I remember my father telling me when I was a child that his father bought a gun in the early part of the war—they were easier to get hold of then than they are now—with the intention of shooting the entire family if the Germans landed. I reflect that if things had been different, I might not be here today, although that consideration is not unique to me, as it applies to other hon. Members.
	Reflecting on the holocaust, it is hard to comprehend—I am sure that hon. Members will share this view—the sheer scale of what happened. It was the worst act of state terrorism that has ever taken place in western Europe. It is also hard to grasp that this act took place in Europe. Those of us who are Europeans—all of us present today are Europeans—find it extremely difficult to grasp that this happened in our continent, which we like to think of as one of the centres of civilisation. It is the continent of Goethe, Mozart and Kant.

Lynda Waltho: I am also very moved by what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. Is it not precisely because of the point he makes that we must encourage organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust to continue their work? It was only when I went to Auschwitz that I started to comprehend the industrial nature of what happened. The young people I was with were silent for virtually the whole trip home, as they sought to comprehend what they had seen. That is exactly why we must encourage the Government to support the Holocaust Educational Trust.

Paul Goodman: The hon. Lady makes an absolutely key point. She is now the third Member in the debate to highlight some of the difficulties of educating young people who are growing up today about what happened in Europe on such a vast scale 50 and more years ago. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) made the same point earlier. He and the hon. Lady are absolutely right.

David Winnick: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that it is difficult to comprehend how these events could have happened in Europe. He was not speaking about this particular period, but would he accept that sustained anti-Semitism has been dominant in Europe for centuries and that it would have been virtually impossible for the Nazis to do what they did if the Jews had not been attacked and persecuted over such a long period? Although Jews have perhaps had more security in this country than in most others since the 17th century, we need to remember that this country was the first in Europe to expel Jews. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the proclamation was made in July 1290, and the actual expulsion was in November—it was much the same as the expulsion of Asians from Uganda in 1972.

Paul Goodman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was that, as Europeans, we need to remember our common history and understand the roots of what happened. It is significant than in the 50 and more years since the war, the Churches—I am thinking particularly of the Roman Catholic Church—have changed key parts of their teaching and message to repudiate some of the inheritance of anti-Semitism that was present in that and other similar institutions. The hon. Gentleman is taking me where I want to go, as I now want to talk about the future as well as the past and to explain why this debate is so topical.
	The Minister was quite right to intimate that the Jews were not the only victims of the holocaust; there were other groups such as Gypsies and, indeed, gay people. Crimes against humanity have taken place recently and are taking place elsewhere—in Rwanda, Darfur and Kosovo, for example. I understand from what the Minister said that those crimes were alluded to in the event in Liverpool on Sunday, which is obviously right and proper. Coming back to the present, however, it is a sober fact that anti-Semitism still, sadly, exists in Europe, perhaps particularly in eastern Europe and, indeed, in the UK.
	In addition to commending the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, I would like to commend that of the Community Security Trust—the Minister will be familiar with it—and the all-party group on anti-Semitism. I see in their places the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and others associated with that group.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

James McGovern: rose—

Paul Goodman: I do not know who to give way to first. Let me start from the bottom and work up.

Kelvin Hopkins: Would the hon. Gentleman care to add to the list of organisations that do such marvellous work in this area the Anne Frank Educational Trust, which has a touring exhibition throughout Britain, which has been going for many years? It draws everyone's attention, including that of schools and communities across the country, to the horrors of the holocaust.

Paul Goodman: Yes, I certainly will add that organisation to what the hon. Gentleman knows is quite a long list.

James McGovern: I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust. It has already been mentioned that two people from each constituency are invited to go on a trip to Auschwitz each year. What has not been mentioned is that MPs are also invited, and I would hope that every Member would encourage as many other Members as possible to participate in that trip. I was fortunate enough to go in October last year with more than 200 Scottish school pupils. It was a most memorable trip, and I would like to pay particular tribute to Rebecca Clark of Lawside academy in Dundee who recorded everyone's views about it for the academy's radio programme. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more hon. Members should participate in these trips?

Paul Goodman: Yes, and in saying so I am half making a commitment to go myself. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
	When I was growing up, it was recognised that the main political source of anti-Semitism in the UK was neo-Nazi groups, but the picture today is slightly different. The neo-Nazi groups are still there, but there are others who express extreme views and who believe, for example, that Jews are the enemy of Islam. That is a subject of some interest to me as the Conservative MP with the largest number of Muslim constituents. I always find that view puzzling. My constituents are often keen to point out to me that Jews and Christians are "Ahl al-Kitab"—people of the book—who are recognised in Islam as fellow believers in one God. The extremist views that I referred to are certainly not those of mainstream Muslims.

Karen Buck: On that particular point, is the hon. Gentleman aware that a malicious rumour has been circulating that holocaust teaching is not permitted and is being reduced in certain schools with large numbers of Muslim pupils? Speaking as a Member who represents a constituency with many such schools, may I absolutely reassure him that that is not the case? Indeed, schools in my constituency have participated in the Holocaust Educational Trust activities and I have sometimes joined them. There is a strong emphasis on holocaust teaching, which crosses all the faith communities. I would like to see all-party condemnation of that rumour.

Paul Goodman: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. I was going to ask the Minister about that. According to my research, a document produced by the Department for Children, Schools and Families referred to one teacher in a school in northern England who had allegedly backed off from teaching the holocaust because of the reaction that, rightly or wrongly, they thought they would get from Muslim pupils. Perhaps the Minister can clear that up later.
	While discussing Holocaust memorial day, I wanted to make passing reference to the Muslim Council of Britain, of which both the Government and, for the Conservatives, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones have in some respects been critical. The MCB this year decided to attend Holocaust memorial day, having boycotted it for many years. It is right to give credit where it is due—it has finally decided to attend.
	In relation to keeping Holocaust memorial day alive, I want to press the Minister a little on anti-Semitism in Britain today in universities and schools. It is a sobering thought that the Government are paying capital costs for school security in, I believe, 12 local authority areas. That is a reminder that the terrible legacy of anti-Semitism, demonstrated in the holocaust, is not, I am afraid, entirely gone.
	I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government have a hate crime taskforce, which is reviewing evidence of campus anti-Semitism. Has that taskforce had an opportunity to report? If not, when will it do so? Secondly, there is a long-standing difficulty about British citizens, or at least people living in Britain, contributing to USA-based anti-Semitic websites. I understand that a prosecution may be due. If the Minister can give any news on that, I think the House would be grateful.
	Thirdly, the Government are committed to recording different hate crimes. In a Westminster Hall debate—initiated, I think, by the all-party group—a Minister gave that commitment, but apparently only one in 10 recent anti-Semitic hate crimes has led to prosecution. That is a low proportion. Will the Minister comment on what the Government can do to raise the success rate?
	In closing, I looked to the account of what happened in Liverpool and found what seemed to be an apposite quote from Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, which marries up the points about past and future that many hon. Members have made today:
	"We can't change the past. But each of us, by challenging prejudice and intolerance, can change the future."
	That is an entirely appropriate thought with which to end my contribution to this topical debate on Holocaust memorial day.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This might be the appropriate point at which to remind Back-Bench Members that there is no time limit on their speeches, but I suspect that, unless they confine themselves to reasonably concise remarks, I shall not be able to call every Member. I hope that there will be a degree of co-operation across the House.

Denis MacShane: We have only one hour for this debate. Those on the Front Benches have been very generous in taking interventions. I will not take interventions, simply so that I can sit down as soon as I can. Please wave a yellow or a red card at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I go over more than four or five minutes.
	This is an important debate and I am glad that the Government have found time for it. Like other Members, I have visited Auschwitz. I was there on the 60th anniversary of the liberation, but I have taken my children on private visits to Poland—to Madjenek—to try to explain to them exactly what the holocaust was. It was unique; it was not another genocide, another extermination. History is littered with those. As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said, we face them today, perhaps in Darfur. What is being unleashed in Kenya might also be going in that horrible direction. We hope not.
	The holocaust was four years of calmly organised, purposeful integration of transport, science, engineering and construction work to put millions of Jews, Sinti and Gypsies to death. We are now finding that the death toll may be higher. I want to report to the House the remarkable work of Father Desbois, a Paris-based priest who has spent the past two or three years touring sites in Ukraine that are not recorded, discovering graves containing the remains of Jews put to death by SS and Wehrmacht Einsatzgruppen after the invasion of Ukraine.
	The holocaust figures may have to be increased a little, which is why we have to say to ourselves that there is no comparison between the holocaust and other horrible moments of European, or indeed world, history—expulsions, ethnic cleansing, population transfers, massacres at the end of the Ottoman empire and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians leaving their homes in the wars of 1947 and 1948.
	Nor can we class the holocaust as just a matter of history. As hon. Members have said, the holocaust was rooted in an ideology—not in hate, race or religious hate, much as those were part of it, but in an ideology called anti-Semitism. It has been said that anti-Semitism is a light sleeper. As chairman of the all-party commission of inquiry into anti-Semitism in this country, let me report to the House the fact that this is a light sleeper that is reawakening. Anti-Semitism is one of the ideological driving forces for violence, hate and terror around the world. It is international and coherent; it involves theoreticians and practitioners; its involves men of huge violence while at its soft end it involves a joke around the dinner table, or perhaps a brick hurled through a synagogue window.
	We have to place on record some apostles of contemporary anti-Semitism as the best way of giving witness to our concern about and horror at what happened in the holocaust. Take, for example, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who says:
	"An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."
	He goes on:
	"I consider this type of martyrdom operation"—
	blowing up Jews in Israel—
	"as an evidence of God's justice."
	All this was said on the BBC, not hidden away on obscure websites. He also said:
	"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".
	This man is an open advocate of Jew killing and of holocaust activities as they have been modernised in contemporary world history.
	A few years back, Mr. Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam at the al-Haram mosque in Mecca, said:
	"Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today...the scum of the human race 'whom Allah turned into apes and pigs'".
	In March 2003, a more senior state figure, President Bashar al-Assad, said:
	"Even if the peace process succeeds, it is impossible that Israel should be a legitimate state".
	Returning home, Mr. David Irving, talking late last year to  The Guardian, said that the Jews were responsible for what happened to them in the second world war and that the "Jewish problem" was responsible for nearly all the wars of the past 100 years:
	"The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune",
	he declared.
	At about the same time, Muhammad Cherif Abbas, Algeria's Minister of War Veterans, said of President Nicolas Sarkozy:
	"You know the origins of the French president and those who put him into power. Do you know that the Israelis printed a stamp with Nicolas Sarkozy on it during the election campaign?...Why has Bernard Kouchner..."—
	the French Foreign Minister, who is a non-believing Jew—
	"decided to cross the floor? It's the result of a movement that reflects the views of the real architects of Sarkozy's arrival in power—the Jewish lobby."
	There we have it again—references to the "Jewish lobby", the cabal. The Saudi Government are publishing translations of the protocols of the elders of Zion and circulating them as contemporary historical material.
	My final remarks—I shall sit down soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for that glance—relate to material published by Policy Exchange in a report produced by Professor Denis MacEoin of Newcastle university at the end of last year. The information in question is in circulation in the King Fahad school in west London. It says that the Jews are responsible for trying to
	"immerse nations in vice and the spread of fornication."
	It also says that the Jews are
	"spreading immoral pornographic literature...Cheating, bribing, stealing and conning."
	It goes on to say:
	"The Jews are a people who were moulded with treachery and backstabbing throughout the centuries and they do not keep their word nor honour their promise."
	Finally, let me quote Nick Griffin of the British National party, who is currently obsessed with Polish workers. A few years ago it was Asian workers, but the man has always been obsessed with Jews. He wrote a book called "Who Are The Mindbenders?", which lists Jews who work in the media and do not use their real names. Mr. Griffin denounced the former Labour Member of Parliament for York, Alex Lyon, as
	"this bloody Jew... whose only claim to fame is that two of his parents died in the Holocaust."
	In a book published in 1988, Mr. Griffin wrote:
	"the Jews... shifted the alleged sites of the mass gassings from the no-longer believable German camps such as Dachau and Belsen to the sites in Communist Poland such as Auschwitz and Treblinka."
	I put those quotes on the record so that people who read the debate can understand that what we are dealing with is not history. What we are dealing with is not what happened in the past; it is alive, awake and organising. It involves British citizens. It involves many people from different countries and different faiths. We must combat anti-Semitism today with the dedication with which we so singularly failed to combat anti-Semitism and Nazism before 1939.

Lembit �pik: Although I am not Jewish, my family's history was changed for ever by the momentous and destructive events that engulfed the continent of Europe 65 years ago. The imperative for my parents to flee Estonia under threat of persecution and probable death is the reason I am here. The United Kingdom's generosity and compassion at the time saved my family, and for that I, like so many others, am for ever in this country's debt.
	It is my family's history, and my strong sense of association with humanity as a common community, that made me agree to agree to work with the Holocaust Educational Trust to promote the issues that Holocaust memorial day exists to commemorate. I pay particular tribute to Karen Pollock, head of the trust, whoceaselessly, courageously and with extraordinary poise and elegancehas raised its effectiveness to the level that we see today. We all owe her a great debt of gratitude.
	I want to say a little about the Lessons from Auschwitz project, which enables sixth-form students to make one-day visits to the former Nazi death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. It gives them a unique insight into the catastrophe that can result when anti-Semitism and other prejudice spiral out of control. Most participants return not just with a deeper understanding of the past, but with a real sense of mission to ensure that such events are never allowed to happen again.
	Last year the Government provided 1.5 million to support that flagship project. It was hard fought for, but the HET is immeasurably grateful for the Government's generous contribution, which has enabled it to expand the project dramatically and take it nationwide. The aim is to make it available to sixth-formers at every secondary school and further education college in the United Kingdom. I hope that this year representatives of all six secondary schools in my constituency will be able to act as ambassadors, and will report their findings to their schools.
	One of the primary aims of the visits is to enhance participants' sense of civic responsibility and encourage them to be active in standing up to all forms of racism and discrimination, not just anti-Semitism. It is mandatory for them to share their experiences and disseminate the lessons that they have learned in their schools and communities on their return. Many of the students who went last year chose to make it a Holocaust memorial day commemorative event, and as a result there has been a considerable increase in the number of young people participating on the day.
	All Members of Parliament are invited to join students from their constituencies on the visits and become involved in their follow-up activities, and I encourage all Members to take advantage of that opportunity. Their involvement helps to inspire young people to become more politically aware and active, as well as underlining the importance of lessons that we, as parliamentarians, are duty bound to promote.

Simon Hughes: I took part in a memorial event at the Soviet war memorial in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park, just over the bridge. One of the benefits of such events is that people come from all sorts of backgrounds. We saw not only diplomats from the Russian and other former Soviet embassies, but holocaust survivors and young people of, probably, 30 nationalities. They were able to meet and to realise that we are all part of the same human race, with the same rights and the same dignity.

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend is right. Such events serve to remind us that the holocaust is not the only example of mass murder committed by the human race since 1945. Millions have died in circumstances comparable to what happened during world war two.
	Auschwitz is a lesson in what went wrong in the past because human beings allowed it to occur. We should remember that those things went wrong in a highly educated, civilised, first-world country, which was not so different from the United Kingdom before it descended into the barbarism that is commemorated on Holocaust memorial day. Although we should recognise that other events have taken place around the world, the holocaust in Germany stands ignominiously as the worst of them all. I hope that all of us, including our colleagues who are not present today, will agree that the only thing that we really must regard as intolerable is intolerance itself. That, in my judgment, is the strongest insurance: the best way in which to make certain that human history's darkest hour is never repeated.

Ian Cawsey: I welcome the debate. I shall try to be brief, as others wish to speak.
	Earlier in the Session I tabled early-day motion 648 to commemorate Holocaust memorial day. I thank all 169 Members in all parts of the House who showed their support by signing it.
	This year's Holocaust memorial day theme was Imagine, remember, reflect and react. On Sunday I attended a local memorial service in Brigg, organised by Brigg town council. The council has an annual ceremony and a permanent memorial in the Angel courtyard, in the council buildings in the market place. This year's event was led by our first-class mayor Mike Doherty and his wife Pat, and was organised by our excellent town clerk, Jeanette Woollard. The ceremony was short, moving and effective, involving people of all ages and different religions. It was an honour and a privilege to participate in it. Along with the mayor and eight schoolchildren, I placed 10 stones around the permanent memorial to commemorate the 10 million people who died at the hands of the Nazis.
	Keeping the memory alive is important, hence the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, which is 20 years old this year. They have championed holocaust education in schools, and it has been on the curriculum since 1991. It has been claimed that it will be diminished or removed from the curriculum, and I have seenas, I am sure, have many Memberssome of the e-mails that were sent as part of a campaign to prevent any such move. Their purpose seemed to be to send an anti-Muslim message, attacking Muslims for being somehow responsible.
	Those e-mails, which served as a chilling reminder of how quickly prejudice can spread, ended up in America, in a world so insular that people thought UK stood for University of Kentucky. Representatives of the university had to issue a press statement making it clear that it was nothing to do with them. Indeed, as far as I can see it was nothing to do with anything at all, but it would be good if the Minister reiterated that holocaust education will remain on the curriculum.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) mentioned the Lessons from Auschwitz project and the 1.5 million grant that the Government provided last year, which has allowed the project to expand so that all schools can participate. I hope the Minister will also confirm that such funding will continue.
	Just over a year ago, I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. In the morning, we visited Auschwitz, which was bizarre as it looked like a film set. It is a former barracks, and it was quite smart and well built, and I could imagine a film being made there. It was the afternoon visit to Birkenau that really hit home. Birkenau is on a different scale and it is purpose-built: it is enormous and it is designed to kill efficientlyto kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. It is a chilling experience, and I believe that the memory of Birkenau will live with anybody who visits it.
	I remember standing on the platform by the railway track, where there is a large photograph of literally thousands of Jewish people going through the infamous separation, with a doctor holding his arm out to direct those who have to go the way that leads straight to death. There is a large shed in the background of the photograph, and after a few moments visitors realise that that shed is still there and that they are standing in exactly the place where those events happened.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is speaking very movingly about his visit, and it is important that people see this terrible place. It is also important to hear from people who actually experienced the holocaustthe survivors. As those survivors are growing older and increasingly frail, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to keep alive their testimony through DVDs and other recordings and that every effort should be made to circulate such recordings to future generations?

Ian Cawsey: I entirely agree. In fact, the Holocaust Educational Trust made a DVD on such recollections and won a BAFTA for it. That is another of its great achievements, and I am sure it will help in future holocaust education.
	It takes hours to tour all of Birkenau, and we finished with a memorial service around the ruins of one of the crematoriums. Afterwards, it was dark and we walked along what is probably the most infamous railway track in the world. It is impossible not to be affected. On the coach journey back to the airport, I spoke to some young people, and what they said was revealing. They had done holocaust education at schoolin fact, they had done extra holocaust education as they had attended a seminar prior to the visitbut nothing had hit home as much as the visit itself. That is why I hope that the Government will ensure that that is funded in future.
	Some people ask me, Why the holocaust? There have been many other atrocities, both before and since. Indeed, there have, but the holocaust was so awful and so huge. Two out of three European Jews, and millions from other minority groups, were killed. It happened during a conflict we were involved in, it happened in countries not far away and, in historical terms, it happened not long ago.
	I believe that if we are not vigilant it could happen again. That is why we all must follow the theme of this year's Holocaust memorial day: imagine, remember, reflect, react. If we do, the chances of there being another holocaust will be greatly diminished and the world will be a better place.

Michael Howard: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. My grandmother was killed at Auschwitz. I was partly brought up by an aunt who survived it, after having actually been in a gas chamber more than once, and I have an uncle, happily still alive, who survived two other concentration camps. So the holocaust has had a direct and terrible effect on my family.
	I have, of course, visited Auschwitz. One of the most chilling exhibitsof the many, many chilling exhibitsis the map that was prepared for the 1943 Wannsee conference. It depicts the countries of Europe, and beside each country is the number of Jews whom the Nazis expected to take and kill. The map includes England, and there is a number attached to it.
	I am glad that this debate is being held because, as all Members have said, we must never forget, and I echo the tributes that have been paid to the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for their excellent work. We must also never forget that Jews were not the only group who were devastated by this unprecedented and unique horror.
	I do not propose to attempt to describe the horrors that occurred on our continent just over 60 years ago; they are well documented. I want to make a different point. The holocaust saw the deepest degradation of the human spirit that we have ever witnessed, but it also gave rise to some outstanding acts of heroism both by Jews, such as those that occurred in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and by non-Jews. Many of those acts have been researched and recognised by the Yad Vashem UK Foundation, which also does much to keep memories of the holocaust alive, and I would like to cite just one example.
	On the eve of the German occupation of Warsaw, the director of the Warsaw zoo was a man called Dr. Zabinski. The Germans appointed him superintendent of the city's public parks as well. Availing himself of the opportunity to visit the Warsaw ghetto, ostensibly to inspect the state of the flora within the ghetto walls, Dr. Zabinski maintained contact with pre-war Jewish colleagues and friends and helped them escape to, and find shelter on, the so-called Aryan side of the city. Many cages in the zoo had been emptied of animals during the September 1939 air assault on Warsaw, and Dr. Zabinski decided to use them as hiding places for fleeing Jews. Over the course of three years, hundreds of Jews found temporary shelter in those abandoned animal cells, located on the western bank of the River Vistula, until they were able to relocate to permanent places of refuge elsewhere. In addition, close to a dozen Jews were sheltered in Dr. Zabinski's two-storey private home in the zoo's grounds. In this extraordinarily dangerous undertaking, he was assisted by his wife, Antonina, a recognised author, and their young son, Ryszard, who nourished, and looked after the needs of, the many distraught Jews in their care.
	At first, Dr. Zabinski paid from his own funds to subsidise the maintenance costs, and later money was received through the Jewish Committee. He was an active member of the Polish underground army, and he took part in the Warsaw uprising of August and September 1944. When it was suppressed, he was taken as a prisoner to Germany, but his wife continued his work, looking after the needs of some of the Jews left behind in the ruins of the city.
	I believe that that is a truly extraordinary story, and it illustrates, as do so many other stories, that while the holocaust saw the human spirit sink to depths of degradation previously unplumbed, it also saw the human spirit soar to extraordinary heights of heroism and self-sacrifice.
	Perhapsthis point might be a little more controversialthere is a lesson here for us Members. We are legislators. We make laws that seek to frame, to regulate and to modify the conduct of our fellow citizens, but the extremes of human conductfor bad and for goodthat we saw during the holocaust, and that we continue to see on a smaller scale today, are in many ways beyond our reach, and the ability we have to influence them by passing laws is limited.
	I am nearing the end of the period during which I have had the enormous privilege of serving in this House, and as I reflect on the lessons we legislators in particular can learn from the events of six decades ago I believe that a sense of humility should come very high on the list. It is not an easy lesson to learnI certainly cannot claim to be one of its best pupilsbut we should all do our best to take it to heart.

Andrew Dismore: It is a privilege to follow such a moving speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Ten years ago, as a new Member of Parliament, I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau with the Holocaust Educational Trust. I pay tribute to Rabbi Barry Marcus, who was a stalwart of that visit and has been one ever since. As all hon. Members have mentioned, it was a moving experience. We all bring back our own memories. The trigger, for me, was seeing a great mound of shoes. None of the shoes had lacesthat was what brought home to me the industrial nature of the holocaust; some poor slave labourers had had to go round taking all the laces out.
	Like everyone else, I was moved. On the plane home I asked myself what I could do, as an individual, to ensure that the holocaust never happens again. In those days, there was no Holocaust memorial day. The idea of one had been floating around, but nobody had done much to bring it about. I thought I would make it my big campaign in Parliament to achieve that, so I introduced a ten-minute Bill, raised the matter with the then Prime Minister and enlisted his support. I am pleased to say that that ultimately led to the first Holocaust memorial day in January 2001. I am pleased about the great consensus in the country as a whole that it was a good idea, but I must point out that it was controversial at the time. Indeed, I was described in the  Daily Mail as a holocaust bore because of my efforts to bring it about.

Denis MacShane: Good old  Daily Mail.

Andrew Dismore: Quentin Letts in fact.
	There was much debate and argument about the holocaust day both within and outside the Jewish community. I was going around advocating the cause in synagogues and debating it with Jewish people. I spoke before the Board of Deputies of British Jews, where there was even one vote against; one can never get unanimity in the Board of Deputies. Ultimately, there was great support for my proposal, because the purpose of a Holocaust memorial day, as I, and I believe everybody else, envisaged it by the time that the debate had finished, was that it was different from Yom Ha-Shoah, when Jewish people remember their own loss. The purpose of the Holocaust memorial day was to engage the wider community in the debates, arguments and discussions that the Jewish people had had among themselves for a long time, to try to spread the word about what had happened and to ensure that as a result it never happened again. Of course, it is not only Holocaust memorial day itself that arose from this process. Holocaust memorial day is a focus for events and activities throughout the year in schools, communities and, in particular, among young people. I am pleased about the support that the Government have given for that.
	My next visit to Auschwitz was made with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for the 60th anniversary commemorations of the liberation. The Duke of York, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Janner, who is a huge advocate for the cause, were also present. If anything brought home to me the experience, it was that occasion. It was not just the fact that so many people were gathered, or that so many survivors were still able to return, but the intense, freezing cold. We were wrapped up in I do not know how many layers, with big boots and hats onthe worksand chilled to the marrow, yet they were the conditions that the people who were liberated from Auschwitz had been able to survive in those thin striped prison uniforms.
	We must remember the scale of the holocaust, its unique evil and the deaths of millions. As has been said, it was not only Jews who were killed, but political prisoners, gays, Roma and the disabled. In remembering them by the millions, we forget that each was a real person. That is why I also pay tribute to the efforts of Yad Vashem.
	Last week, I was pleased to host the launch in Parliament of the Guardian of the Memory scheme. Yad Vashem held 3 million names, identifying Jewish victims, half of whom were children. Under the scheme, each will be remembered by a living person, whose commitment is to light a candle once a year on their behalf and to wear the Yad Vashem emblem while doing so. I asked Yad Vashem whether it could identify victims by occupation, and it went out of its way to do so. We identified 12 Members of Parliamentpeople like us here todaywho had been killed in the holocaust. I asked 12 Members of Parliament, on a cross-party basis, to adopt their memory for the future. I think it is a wonderful scheme, and it has cross-party support.
	My pledge is to commemorate the memory of Yitzkhak Sciaky, a Greek Member of Parliament who was killed in Auschwitz in 1942. Those who know me well, know that I have a Greek connection. Mr. Speaker has given me permission to tell the House that he, too, is participating by remembering the memory of Shaklina Shapiro, a metalworker from Poland. Mr. Speaker was keen to have somebody more akin to his trade union roots. The Foreign Secretary is participating, as is the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has adopted the memory of Sabina Shpilrein, a psychoanalyst whose rather colourful history was cut short in 1942. The Prime Minister has also expressed his support, and I urge other hon. Members to participate too. I am pleased that the Muslim Council of Britain has ended its boycott, and I hope that many more Muslim people will join the Holocaust Educational Trust on visits.
	Some unfinished issues arise too, such as the Armenians' campaign for recognition. Some 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Ottomans in 1915. When Hitler invaded Poland, he said:
	Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
	We do not do so, officially, probably because of pressure from Turkey, where it remains a criminal offence to talk about the Armenians, despite the well documented historical facts of what occurred, including in this House's contemporary records. I was pleased that the Armenian ambassador came to speak to our local commemoration in Barnet last Sunday, which was the biggest outside the national commemoration. It is a disgrace that on last Sunday's Holocaust memorial day, the Armenian genocide memorial in Wales was desecrated, and I urge hon. Members to sign early-day motion 797 to express their condemnation of that.
	I am not putting the case for the Armenian genocide to become the new start date, as it were, for Holocaust memorial day. Holocaust memorial day is about the holocaust, that defining event of the 20th century, and subsequent genocides. However, it is incumbent on us, if we are serious about examining the issues of genocide, to recognise officially what happened to the Armenians, as has been done in France, Germany and elsewhere.
	I ask myself whether Holocaust memorial day, despite the original controversies, has served the purpose and objectives that we then set for it. Many more people are aware of what happened and why. The discussions and the debate are healthy in exploring the issues and making it far less likely that the holocaust would ever happen again in Europe. The very controversy over Holocaust memorial day, whether through the Muslims or over the Armenians, helps to raise those very important issues. On the fundamental question of whether it has prevented genocide, the answer is, regrettably, no. One has only to look at Darfur to see that. We still have a long way to go to achieve the humanity that Holocaust memorial day aims to achieve.

Keith Simpson: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. I am not Jewish. I am making this contribution as a consequence of once having been an historian. About 30 years ago, I was asked to write a book on the Waffen SS, the military wing of the SS. That involved a considerable amount of research, at the centre of which was the aim of trying to understand the racial motivation. It is frequently sidelined in many histories of the Nazi party and of Nazi Germany, but is the core element of the holocaust, which the national socialist state eventually referred to as the final solutionit meant just that. Many people suffered in the second world war at the hands of the Nazis and their collaboratornational groups such as the Poles and the Greeks; political parties, such as the communists, social democrats and Christian democrats; resisters; and members of the Special Operations Executivebut if one seriously wanted to get killed, one was Jewish. One was at the bottom of the pit. In a concentration camp someone might just have survived in any other category, but it was almost impossible for a Jewish person to do so. We saw that such camps became industrial complexes.
	Wearing my historian's hat, I want to mention four or five points that remain relevant to us today, not least as democratic politicians. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) touched on my first point. Amazingly, we still live in an age of holocaust denial, although the evidence about what happened is overwhelming. I am talking not only about the physical remains, the contemporary sources and the war crime trials, but, not least, the scholarship. It ranges from some of the earlier scholars such as Raul Hilberg, who wrote The Destruction of the European Jews, to the more recent, outstanding and, in many ways, depressing work of Saul Friedlnder, who has managed to pull together so much. The scholarship completely and utterly refutes what has been written by people such as David Irving.
	The victims were Jews of all classes, backgrounds, ages and nationalitiesassimilated and non-assimilated. They were, on the whole, innocent people. They were killed because of their race, not because of their politics, their religion or their social behaviour. That was what absolutely and totally motivated the perpetrators. We hear a great deal about functionaries of one kind or another, but there is no doubt that Hitler and the leading Nazis believed that there was a world Jewish conspiracy. They wound up the German war effort and made that policy its centre.
	The sad thing is that without hundreds of thousands of people, not just in Germany but elsewhere in Europecivil servants, soldiers, policemen, lawyers, doctors, academics, scientists and industrialistsit could not have happened. And, on the whole, those people were not reluctant functionaries. Then there were the collaborators, the European Nazis and anti-Semites. Again, the efficient removal of Jews from many countries would not have been achieved without the highly efficient civil servants and police in Holland, Vichy France and elsewhere.
	Then we have the bystandersthe public, the neighbours, the democratic political parties, the Churches and, of course, the allies and the neutrals. I have often wondered what we would have done in the circumstances. I look at how many of us would behave at the prospect of our name appearing in the  News of the World, if it were to e-mail us threatening to put us in one of its columns [ Interruption. ] I am not making a flippant point: it was literally life and death for many Jewish people in the 1930s. If their neighbours helped them, they risked death too, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said. Many people passed by on the other side.
	Then there were the resistersindividuals and groups, from many nations and motivated by moral repugnance, neighbourly behaviour, resistance to the Nazis and courage. Many of them were ambivalent. The life of Oskar Schindler, made famous by the film, is an obvious example.
	Whom do we usually remember? We remember the victims and the perpetrators, but we politicians in a democratic Parliament should take note of the collaborators and the bystanders. There was no inevitability to the final solution and the holocaust. It was incremental, and incremental in a way that could happen again. It is not enough that good men and women do nothing.

John Mann: I wish to pay tribute to the Smith brothers of north Nottinghamshire who have been crucial in the running and advancement of Holocaust memorial day over the years. They run the Beth Shalom holocaust centre in north Nottinghamshire, which every school, especially in the north of England, should aspire to visit as part of its educational programme.
	I also wish to pay tribute to Lord Janner of Braunstone, who chairs the Holocaust Educational Trust. Among his many other major works on the issue, he has taken on the task of marking mass graves in the Baltic states, and I have had the privilege of assisting with that recently. It is a salutary lesson in history and in current events, because not every country in Europenever mind in the worldmarks Holocaust memorial day. Indeed, not every country is involved in advances in education on the holocaust. Many choose to opt out.
	In Latvia, where mass graves are being marked and the work of Lord Janner is soon to be completed, the best-selling book this Christmas was by Andris Grutups, the co-founder of, and lawyer for, the ruling party of Latvia. He is a Member of the European Parliament and a historian. His book is an attempt to rewrite history in relation to the holocaust. His basic theory is best described as, The Jews had it coming, because they were all communists. He suggests that a balancing of history is required. Of course, Grutupswho is, let us not forget, a political leaderhas a track record. He has published books on the blood libel and on the Dreyfus case, which were also from a strange historical perspectivenot unique, but one which would not be shared by the vast majority of historians or, indeed, any reasonable person.
	On 22 January, in Tallinn, Estonia, five MEPs from five different countries met to launch a group called Common EuropeCommon History. It has the same themethe need for an equal evaluation of history. It is just a traditional form of prejudice, rewritten in a modern context. In essence, it is trying to equate communism and Judaism as one conspiracy and rewrite history from a nationalist point of view. Those are elected MEPs.
	I hope that the Minister and his Department will consider how we can make progress on these issues in the European Union. One good way to mark the huge success of Holocaust memorial day in Britain this year would be to convene a Council of Ministers meeting to consider anti-Semitism today in the European Union and how it should be tackled in all member states. That would begin to tease out some of the prejudices that exist.
	My final proposal is in relation to the United Nations and its infamous so-called anti-racism conference in Durban. Under the chairmanship of Libya, it is now proposed to hold a Durban II. The first conference broke up because of issues of anti-Semitism. I suggest to the Minister that he should either copy the example of the Canadians, who have already announced that they will not participate in Durban II orperhaps more constructivelysuggest that if there is to be a major UN conference on anti-racism, holocaust education should be at its core. It could then examine how all countries could participate in holocaust education and commemorating the holocaust through Holocaust memorial days.

Julian Lewis: When the allies overran the concentration camps at the end of the second world war, a parliamentary delegation was sent to visit Buchenwald. So distressing were the sights that those MPs saw that one of them, a lady called Mavis Tate, subsequently committed suicide. The very idea, at that time or in the years immediately following the war, that there could arise a school of thought that could seriously attempt to deny what had happened in places such as Buchenwald would have seemed patently absurd.
	It was not until the early 1970s that I first heard of a publication called Did Six Million Really Die? At that time, it seemed totally bizarre that anyone could suggest that the holocaust had not happened, yet by dint of assiduous embroidery, the peddling of lies and the dressing-up of propaganda and deceit under a false label of historiography, that thesis has moved into a different arena. Everyone has heard of it, and organisations such as the Oxford union debating society think it appropriate to offer the privilege of a platform to its most notorious advocate, David Irving.
	I found myself caught up in that dispute because, by sheer coincidence, I had been invited to speak at the Union a few days before the Irving and Griffin visit was due to take place. As a result of the invitation made to those people, I tore up my membership card, having been a member of the organisation for 37 years. I must have put my case across poorly, because time after time I was told that it was an issue of free speechas though anyone had suggested that Irving and Griffin should not have the right to say what they wanted, as long as they did not break the law. In fact, the question was about who should have one or two of the limited opportunities to speak at the Union that are available every term. A Labour colleague put it far more effectively than I have: Even fascists have the right to eatbut that doesn't mean you ought to invite them to dinner.
	As a result of that little episode, which was widely reported, I received an e-mail from my cousin in Israel congratulating me on making that modest gesture. I was affected when I received that e-mail from my cousin Chana, because she was the only child from the village of Siemiatycze to survive the holocaust. She survivedshe was about six at the timebecause an extremely brave Polish farming family by the name of Krynski hid her, her parents and her grandmother in a bunker under a barn for more than a year and a half. If her family had been caught, they would have been annihilated and so would the Krynski family.
	The Krynskis were very poor, and they saved my cousins because before the war my cousins had had a little shop on the market square, and sometimes the Krynskis did not have enough money to buy what they needed for the family. Without giving it a second thought, my cousins used to say, Don't worry, Mrs. Krynski. Take what you need; pay when you can. Little did they think that that simple gesture of charity would one day save their lives. After the war, my cousin's family moved to Canada and used to send parcels back to the Krynskis and do the best they could to support them in Poland. Later, they suggested that Mr. Krynski should go to Israel to be honoured for what he had done. It was a sad testimony to the state of post-war anti-Semitism in Poland that he decided, on the whole, that it would not be wise for him to be honoured in Israel for saving Jews and then to go back to live in that part of Poland.
	On a brighter note, when I went to Siemiatycze for the first time in 2004 I saw the little shopit is still there, although it is a flower shop nowand I met the young mother who lives in the little flat above it. I explained that I would like to have a look around, because my family had lived there. She asked whether my family intended to put in a claim to get the property back. I said, No, that's all history now. What a pity, she said, It's a council flat. If you claimed it back, I might get a better offer!
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said, I was privileged to be invited to represent the leader of our party at the excellent event in Liverpool. It was gratifying to see the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi on the platform side by side, commemorating the holocaust. It was also excellent to seeand meetthe representative of the Muslim Council of Britain, who was attending the event for the first time. I said to him what I shall now say to the House: I look forward to the day when we see on that platform a high representative of the Muslim faith who is of similar rank to those who represent Christianity and Judaism. Then we will know that the Nazis really are on the run.

James Clappison: I shall be brief. I should declare an interest as a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. I hope that that will not disqualify me from paying tribute to the excellent work of its dedicated and committed staff, in particular for their work among young people. I believe that there is no better way for young people to learn about the suffering that can take place in the world than through the unique horror of the holocaust.
	I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will not mind my saying that I found his speech very moving. He referred to the deepest degradation of the human spirit. Let us learn the lesson that that teaches us all. Let us give us full support to the Holocaust Educational Trust, Holocaust memorial day and every other possible way in which we can learn about that terrible horror and the lesson which it holds for us today.

Parmjit Dhanda: I know that the time available is short, and it is difficult to respond to such a moving debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who moved me to get involved in politics in the past, moved me in a very different way today. I congratulate him on that.
	The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) talked about his roots and his family, like many other hon. Membersnot least the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). The hon. Member for Wycombe also mentioned the fact that there were many victims from different backgrounds. Those victims included gay people, trade unionists and, as I learned on Sunday, well over 1 million Roma Gypsies, too. That point was well made. The hon. Gentleman talked about the wider work that needs to be done, as well as the work of the all-party inquiry, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and other hon. Members have been very involved.
	A number of pieces of work are taking place across Government as part of a taskforce on anti-Semitism, including work to tackle some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Wycombe about our campuses and about security in schools. We look forward to providing a positive response to the positive and good work of the all-party inquiry.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) mentioned David Irving, and Nick Griffin, too. I think that he was trying to get across the point that not only should we find their views repugnant, but we should tackle the problem. It is not merely about history; it is also about what we do collectively from here on in. That is why the work of the Holocaust Education Trust and the DVD, which has won a BAFTA, will be so important for the next generation, as they will ensure that we do not lose those crucial lessons from the past.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about the impact that visits to Auschwitz have had on young peopleand older ones too, I dare sayin his constituency. I was lucky enough to meet a group of young people from Oldham who had visited Auschwitz and Srebrenica. They were a real mixture of Jewish, Christian and Muslim, and it was obvious that their lives had been changed forever. The opportunity to go together, as a group, has changed their perceptions of other people, cultures, religions and races. That is an immensely powerful thing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) talked about local ceremonies in his constituency. He asked about the 1.5 million set aside for the Holocaust Educational Trust, and whether that commitment would be continued. I cannot make announcements of behalf of other Departments, but I can say that strong and effective representations have been made in the debate, and I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families will take them into account when making decisions in the future.
	I have mentioned the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe already. He gave a very moving account of his own and his family's experiences, and also an important lesson about humility. In this House we can pass legislation on religious and racial hatred, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to remind us that the law is not always enough when it comes to the extremes of humanity and people who do the most extraordinary and devastating things. We must do a lot more, and that is why this debate has celebrated the good works of the Holocaust Educational Trust and all those involved in Holocaust memorial day.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) told us about his involvement in helping to institute Holocaust memorial day. I congratulate him on being there from the beginning; I had not realised the scale of the battle that he took on when he toured the synagogues of London, and probably beyond.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) made a powerful point about bystanders. In life we can all be bystanders sometimes, but I hope that one result of the good work being done will be that in future, fewer of us will stand by when we see genocide, slaughter and ongoing destruction around the world.
	I mentioned earlier the involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw in the all-party inquiry; he also talked about the contribution that Beth Shalom is making in Nottinghamshire.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) described the powerful image from Sunday's event in Liverpool, when the Archbishop of Canterbury stood alongside the Chief Rabbi. I agree with him that it was also good to see the Muslim Council of Britain represented at the event. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) set out his personal interest in these matters, and he deserves our congratulations.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East made the very good point that all religions and cultures need to be part of holocaust memorial day. So, in conclusion, let us never forget that the first person to contribute on the very first Holocaust memorial day was a Muslim who had been in a concentration camp in Bosnia.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Temporary Standing Order (Topical debates).

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that it is in order for me to express my disappointment that, despite the quality of this debate, the Press Gallery has remained empty throughout, with the exception of the Press Association staff. I hope that the debate will be reported in a significant and positive manner, given the importance of the subject being discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That probably fails the strict test of a point of order, but the hon. Member has made his point.

Orders of the Day

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	  
	Amount to be specified as upper earnings limit: Great Britain

David Gauke: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 1, line 5, at end insert 'and
	(c) in subsection (6), at end insert and may not include any increase in the upper earnings limit in excess of the increase in the retail price index, in percentage terms, for the year to September of the preceding tax year.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, page 1, line 5, at end insert 'and
	(c) after subsection (6) insert
	(7) Any regulations made under this section which increase the upper earnings limit shall be reviewed by the Treasury not later than 6 months after the date on which those regulations come into force to determine whether the upper limit, when calculated on an annualised basis, exceeds the level of earnings at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable.
	(8) If this review so determines, the Treasury shall make regulations which set the upper earnings limit, when calculated on an annualised basis, at a level which does not exceed the level of earnings at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable.
	(9) Any regulations made under subsection (8)
	(a) shall be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
	(b) must be made not later than 1st January of the tax year in which they are made and have effect in respect of the following tax year.'.
	No. 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert 'and
	(c) in subsection (6), at end insert and may not include any increase in the upper earnings limit in excess of the increase in the retail price index, in percentage terms, for the year to September of the preceding tax year.'.
	No. 11, page 1, line 18, at end insert 'and
	(c) after subsection (6) insert
	(7) Any regulations made under this section which increase the upper earnings limit shall be reviewed by the Treasury not later than 6 months after the date on which those regulations come into force to determine whether the upper limit, when calculated on an annualised basis, exceeds the level of earnings at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable.
	(8) If this review so determines, the Treasury shall make regulations which set the upper earnings limit, when calculated on an annualised basis, at a level which does not exceed the level of earnings at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable.
	(9) Any regulations made under subsection (8)
	(a) shall be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
	(b) must be made not later than 1st January of the tax year in which they are made and have effect in respect of the following tax year.'.

David Gauke: These amendments offer alternative ways to deal with what we perceive to be a significant problem with the Bill. I shall set out in detail how they would work, but before I do so I shall put the problem in context.
	All hon. Members are aware of how important taxation is as a constitutional matter, and the House guards very jealously its right to raise revenue. In the broad historical sweep, for instance, the English civil war and the American revolution could be considered relevant to this discussion, although I shall not refer to them in detail. All parties in this House consider the proper scrutiny of revenue-raising measures to be very important.
	This country has two forms of taxation on incomeincome tax and national insuranceand it is worth taking a moment to look at the different ways in which they are dealt with in this House. Income tax was introduced as a temporary measure in 1798; it was abolished five years later and then reintroduced on a permanent basis in 1842. Partly as an historical overhang, since 1860 we have renewed income tax every year, although previously it had been renewed over groups of three or seven years on a number of occasions. However, the review of income tax is also part of Parliament's power over the Executive, as the Crown cannot raise revenue if Parliament is dissolved. Corporation tax is subject to the same restriction.
	In essence, this debate is about thresholds. Since the introduction of the Finance Act 1977, when the Rooker-Wise amendment was implemented, thresholds and personal allowances have increased in line with inflation; they do so unless Parliament expressly states otherwise. The clear intention was to prevent stealth taxation, as thresholds and allowances are both diminished by inflation. Of course, inflation in 1977 was somewhat higher than it has been for some few years now. We still have fiscal drag within a year, but not from year to year.
	Parliament retains the ability not to uprate allowances and thresholds in line with inflation. Indeed, it exercised that power as recently as 2003-04, but it must do so explicitly. It does so through a Finance Bill. This is where I would like to make a comparison with national insurance contributions. With income tax, from the point of view of the taxpayer, the concern is that thresholds will not increase in line with inflation. Our practical concern with national insurance contributions is with the upper earnings limit increasing faster than the rate of inflation. There is also a concernit is probably more theoretical than practicalthat the lower earnings level or primary threshold could fall, but at a practical level the political debate over many years has been about whether the upper earnings limit might increase more rapidly.
	The contrast between national insurance contributions and income tax is considerable in that respect, because thresholds regarding national insurance contributions are determined by regulation, as opposed to primary legislation or a formula that can be amended through such legislation. Section 1 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 provides a safeguard, however. The upper earnings limit cannot be increased by more than seven and a half times the lower earnings limit, or by less than six and a half times the lower earnings limit. Why? Such an arrangement prevents abrupt changes in the scope of national insurance contributions without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	On looking at the debate on Second Reading and in Committee on that legislation, I noted that the concern expressed in Committee was that the provisions were unduly flexible and that six and a half to seven and a half was too wide a band to permit the Government to vary the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit. I also noted that representing the Opposition on that occasion in 1975 was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who raised some important points about flexibility. It shows that things do not necessarily change as much as they might do. The concern in 1975 was that the provisions were too flexible. Clearly, Parliament was provided with an opportunity to restrict the power of the Executive to vary the upper earnings limit unduly and rapidly to increase the upper earnings limit to make a substantial increase in the tax on income that people in the United Kingdom would face.
	That brings me to one of the major problems that we have with this Bill. Clause 1(1) abolishes the ratio and the protection that mean that only so much can be done by regulation.

Mark Field: It gives us insight to have that perspective on the matter. Indeed it shows that there is a comparator, albeit in different contexts, for national insurance and income tax. Would my hon. Friend like to go into detail as to why he believes the Government have sought in that way to break down the safeguard to which he has referred?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend asks a good question. We raised that issue in Committee. Under the new procedure for Public Bills, we were able to ask both the Financial Secretary and her officials that question at the evidence session. The answer was somewhat limited. All we heard was, It gives us greater flexibility. Let me quote the Financial Secretary:
	We see no reason to reintroduce an arbitrary ratio, given our proposal that future changes to the upper earnings limit will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. [Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2008; c. 44.]
	However, that is not a satisfactory justification, because if an arbitrary ratio was good enough for Barbara Castle, and indeed for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, in 1975, I do not see why a ratio is not appropriate for us now. The arguments remain the same.

Mark Field: We had an excellent engagement in the evidence session in Committee. Is my hon. Friend saying that the reality is that we should respect the notion of a ratio, but there is an argument that suggests that the bands within that ratio be changed? Surely it cannot be the view of the Government, and I would imagine that it is not the view of Opposition Members, that the notion of a ratio itself is defunct.

David Gauke: I do not think that the argument for abolishing the ratio has been made; at least, not terribly persuasively. I shall come in a moment to the detail of our amendments, in which we have attempted to outline alternative ways to address that concern. I am not saying that I am necessarily wedded to the idea of a ratio, but that is how Parliament's position has been protected for the past 33 years, and it may be the best way to protect it in future. We can examine other ways. My hon. Friend will recall that we considered the ratio argument in Committee.
	I understand that the Government are trying to align national insurance contribution rates and bands with those for income tax. Although I am concerned that their way of doing it is motivated principally by the aim of raising revenue, the objective of aligning the two is a perfectly respectable and honourable one to which we have no particular objection. It is fair to say that publications such as the Forsyth report were instrumental in encouraging the Government to go down that route or at least to place greater emphasis on simplification. We do not have any problem with that, so we are keen to be helpful to the Government, notwithstanding our concerns about the revenue-raising element. We are willing to help the Government achieve their objective while providing some protection for Parliament; that is the basis of the amendments that we have tabled in Committee and today.
	Various calculations were done on widening the bands. For the first time in some while, I got out my calculator and tried to work out what ratio would be needed, given that the upper point is seven and a half times what is now the primary threshold. It is a difficult sum to calculate in some respects, because one must look at future years and so on, but it is clear that if the existing ratio is breached, it will be breached by only a relatively small amount. One idea, which I think the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) proposed, was that the primary threshold could always be increased a little if the ratio would be breached only by a small margin.
	One of our proposals in Committee was to widen the bands, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) mentioned, so that eight would be the top point rather than seven and a half. Quite possibly Treasury officials have done the calculationsif so, I should be interested to hear what the Minister says about itbut I do not think that there is any doubt that a ratio of eight times the primary threshold as the maximum point would cause the Government any difficulties in achieving their stated objective. One approach would be to consider that ratio. We debated and voted on that proposal in Committee, so it could not be brought back on Report, but it is an idea to which we are sympathetic.

Mark Field: To clarify the issue, is my hon. Friend saying that abolishing the ratio will entirely do away with the protection put into place a third of a century ago that allows Parliament to have its say on the matter, and that as a result this House will have no say on whether to hold back from an arbitrary correctionfrom the Government's perspectiveof national insurance thresholds, particularly at the higher end?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend sums up the position well. For the sake of completeness, let me add that there is the matter of regulation, which would be introduced through the affirmative procedure. No doubt the Minister will make that point.
	It might be helpful to compare two very similar tax changesa failure to uprate the threshold for income tax in line with inflation and an increase in the upper earnings limit. A failure to uprate a threshold for income tax would be announced in the Budget. Under the previous Chancellor it was unlikely that it would be announced in the Budget speech, but it would appear in the Red Book. There would then be four days of debate on the Budget, followed by a vote on a Budget resolution that, as I understand it, would include the income tax element. The resolution would be implemented through a Finance Bill. There would be a Second Reading debate on the Bill, and the income tax element would be a major part of the Bill. One can imagine an Opposition opposing a Finance Bill on the grounds of a failure to uprate income tax.
	That would almost certainly be one of the issues debated by a Committee of the whole House considering such a Finance Bill. The issue would presumably not be debated in Committee, but would certainly come back on Report and Third Reading. So by my reckoning, in the circumstances that I set out, a failure to increase the threshold for income tax would be the subject of up to seven days' debate on the Floor of the House and at least four votes of the Housenot of the Committee, but of the House.
	By contrast, a tax increase on income, which is in many respects similar to the case that I described, such as raising the upper earnings limit, would be the subject of one debate in Committee, lasting perhaps two and a half hours, followed by one vote in Committee. In one case there would be a much superior method of parliamentary scrutiny. There is hardly any comparison between the two cases, and that is difficult to justify.

Mark Field: Is not one of the biggest concerns the fact that the change is pretty high profile in people's minds and affects everyone in the workplace? Whatever their level of earnings, they pay national insurance. As a result, if the Government had their way on the matter and did not allow full scrutiny, the measure would go through on the nod and would not be scrutinised as it should be, not just on the business pages, but beyond. It would not be treated like other matters following a Budget. I do not believe that the Government are being dishonourable or disrespectful, but the change goes to the heart of what many of our constituents feel about paying tax in the broader senseincome tax or national insurance. These issues should therefore be at the forefront of a readily understandable Finance Bill debate, rather than discussed in a Committee Room.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right. The matter would be at the heart of any debate about our finances and our taxation system.
	In Committee we touched on the 1992 general election, which some hon. Members remember better than others and some remember more fondly than others. The Labour party, which was in opposition at the time, was proposing the abolition of the upper earnings limit. Clearly, the Government's position has changed. I regret that amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), which would have had the effect of reverting to the 1992 position by abolishing the upper earnings limit, were not selected. The proposal may well return. I would argue against the abolition of the upper earnings limit for reasons of concern about tax burden, but it is a perfectly respectable position to take.
	It is not this Government's position, but it is not inconceivableit is unlikely, however, and certainly would not be in Britain's intereststhat a Government with a manifesto pledge to abolish the upper earnings limit will be elected. Clearly, that Government would be entitled to abolish the limit, but they should be able to do so only if there were proper parliamentary scrutiny and if all the expected procedures were gone through. The Bill does not provide that protection.

Peter Viggers: In a throwaway line in his Budget, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer put a tax of some 1.5 billion on middle-income families; he simply referred to a change in the upper earnings limit. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the safeguard is removed, that can only lead to the conclusion that the Government are preparing, and intending one day, to use the changes in respect of the removal of the safeguard? Perhaps they will come back with a proposal under the negative procedure, which does not require any debate on the Floor of the House. Having been bitten once, we should fear being bitten again.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a concern that many have. To be fair to the Government, their position is explicitly that the issue is part of the realignment process and that the upper earnings limit will not exceed the point at which people start paying higher rate income tax. The Financial Secretary gave that commitment in Committee, and I do not doubt her integrity.
	However, we all move on at various times. In the words of Robin Day, we are all here today, gone tomorrow politicians to some extent, although I am sure that the Financial Secretary would move on only to even greater things. We find ourselves in the position of not having the legislative protection in the system. We are relying on a commitmentand that is unsatisfactory, given that previously we have had real protection in the system.

Mark Field: We have had a hypothetical debate about the abolition of the upper earnings limit, but there is a slightly more relevant and recent point and it would be interesting to have an idea of how the Government would treat the issue. Four or five years ago the decision was made to invest in the national health service and it was decided that there should therefore be an increase of 1 per cent. right the way through national insurance, effectively abolishing the upper earnings limit in respect of that 1 per cent. additional element. Will my hon. Friend say what safeguards were put into place then and how they might differ if the Government get their way in the Bill?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which leads me to this observation. I will not dwell on the point, but a certain Labour Government had been elected on a pledge that they would not increase the rates of income tax. They then increased national insurance contributions and said, Well, that's not income tax. Given that precedent, if at a future election a partyit could be either partymade a pledge not to increase income tax, could anything stop it increasing national insurance contributions above the upper earnings limit or abolishing the limit? That is an interesting point, which relates back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) said. There is a suspicion that a door is being left open. We know from yesterday's Institute for Fiscal Studies report that the Government's public finances are in a mess; there is an 8 billion black hole.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray far into that report.

David Gauke: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I think that I probably said what I wanted to say. Clearly, there is a concern about public finances, and in such circumstances suspicions may grow.
	I should also sayI assure you that I will make this point very briefly, Madam Deputy Speakerthat although the Government have made a commitment not to increase the upper earnings limit above the point at which higher rate income tax is payable, they also made a commitment at the last general election to have a referendum on the European constitution.

Mark Field: You will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not going to respond to that point.
	The issue is not whether there are commitments, important though they are against the backdrop of a general election and thereafter, but whether there is a proper means of scrutiny on the Floor of this House instead of necessarily going upstairs into Committee. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the risk of going down the route proposed by the Government is that we will not have the opportunity for scrutiny that we have had in the past in relation to changes in the national insurance regime?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is being very helpful. That is exactly the issue. I do not particularly want to debate the rights and wrongs of abolishing the upper earnings limitnor, I suspect, is it in order to do sobut if that were to happen, or even if it were merely to be increased substantially, would the House have the opportunity to scrutinise it properly? We have such an opportunity under the existing legislative framework, but we will not if the Bill is passed in its current form. That is an important point. I stress that we object not to Parliament's ability to change the upper earnings limitof course Parliament should have the right to do thatbut to its not being able to do so by regulation, even by the affirmative procedure.
	We have set out two alternative approachesthey do not run togetherfor ensuring the scrutiny that we want. In amendment No. 8which is mirrored by amendment No. 9 because we need to change two Acts in this process, one relating to England, Scotland and Wales and one relating to Northern Irelandwe suggest that there should be no increase in the upper earnings limit in excess of the retail prices index in September of the previous year. When we tabled a similar amendment in Committee, the Financial Secretary said that the reference date for national insurance contributions is December, not September, so we have rectified that error. She also said that December was not feasible because it would cause various IT costs and so on. That was essentially her argument against the link with the RPI. This is similar to the Rooker-Wise approach whereby thresholds for income tax increase in line with the RPI for September in the previous year. If the higher rate income tax threshold rises along with inflation, based on the RPI in September, and the upper earnings limit rises along with inflation using the same measure, they should continue to go hand in hand, which would enable the Government to fulfil their objectives.
	Neither of our sets of amendments aims to prevent the Government from achieving their stated policy objective of aligning the point at which the upper earnings limit exists and the point at which one starts paying higher rate income tax. The Financial Secretary might argue that they do not quite reflect the provisions that relate to income tax and the Rooker-Wise amendment. If so, would she object to the principle of the amendments, given that her objection to the equivalent amendment in Committee was essentially that December was the wrong date and that it should be September? Now that we have rectified that problem, does she have any objections to the amendment?
	The wording of amendment No. 10 is replicated in amendment No. 11. Depending on what the Financial Secretary says, we might well press amendment No. 10 to a Division. We might press for a vote on amendment No. 8, too, but I will wait to hear what she says before reaching any conclusions.
	Amendment No. 10 is a development of an amendment that we tabled in Committee to probe the Government. At that point, we proposed to allow the upper earnings limit to be increased as long as it did not exceed the level at which higher rate income tax becomes payable.
	The Financial Secretary advanced two argumentstwo technical pointsabout why that would not work. The first was that national insurance contributions are calculated weekly whereas income tax is calculated annually. She construed our amendmentpossibly a little harshly, but I concede that there was an ambiguity in itas meaning that the relevant income tax level of, for example, 43,000 a year would be treated as a weekly limit. That was not our intention, and I believe that we have ended any ambiguity on that point.
	I concede fully the right hon. Lady's second objection, which was that national insurance contributions are determined by regulation before the beginning of a tax year. Income tax is not formally determined until the Finance Bill is enacted. Our proposal in Committee that the national insurance contribution upper earnings limit should not be raised above the point at which higher rate income tax becomes payable did not work because at the point where a regulation would have to be passed the Finance Bill would not have already gone through, even though an announcement would have been made in the Budget and there may be Budget resolutions.
	We accept that argument, which is why we have come back with a different solution. It is not the most elegant piece of drafting that has ever come before the House, but it attempts to address in good faith an entirely legitimate concern. We propose that within six months of the regulation setting the upper earnings limitin other words, six months into the financial yearthe Treasury will be required to review whether the upper earnings limit is above the level at which higher rate income tax is payable. If it is, we would then require the Treasury to bring forward regulations to reduce the upper earnings limit below the higher rate of income tax as existed at that time for the following year.
	That proposal would cause considerable inconvenience to the Treasury, and I make no apologies for that. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a deterrent to prevent any Government from activating the mischief to which I referred earlier. A Government would be able to raise the upper earnings limit through primary legislation, but if the limit were increased by regulation higher than the Government said that they intended, they would have to go through the embarrassment of producing a further order stating that they were wrong and that the upper earnings limit would be brought down the following year.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and I am listening carefully to his suggestions. Does he accept that a review is already conducted in the late summer or early autumn in the form of the pre-Budget report?

David Gauke: I accept that a review takes place. However, amendments Nos. 10 and 11 deal with circumstances in which a Government raise the upper earnings limit with intent, not accidentally. One can imagine a meeting in the Treasury around this time of year in which the view is expressed. We need to raise a bit more revenuehow are we going to do it? Someone then comes up with the bright idea of increasing the upper earnings limit. An investigation takes place to ascertain how that can be achieved and what is to prevent it from being done through regulation.
	Until now, the ratio to which I referred earlier prevented that, but, in future, that protection will not exist. Someone could therefore say, Let's bung up the upper earnings limit from 43,000 to 50,000 or 60,000 and we'll get the extra revenue. If the amendments were accepted, and Ministers and officials considered that proposal, another bright spark in the Treasurywhere there are many bright sparkswould say, Hold on. We'll have to go through the review in early October and introduce a further regulation, which means that, next year, the upper earnings limit will be reduced. That would be an uncomfortable experience.
	The amendments would be effective if an error or a misalignment by a small amount occurred, but they apply mainly in the case of a brazen breach of a commitment made by Government. As I have said, they would not be binding for ever, but they would cause some inconvenience that should dissuade a Government from taking a path that hon. Members of all parties do not believe any Government should follow. That is the essence of our case. I stress again that it would not prevent the upper earnings limit from being changed, but it stops that happening by regulation and inadequately.
	Let us make a comparison with income tax, which is similar to national insurance contributions. We know from the evidence-taking session that the Government have no proposals to merge them. We all acknowledge that there are great similarities between them, but a comparison of the parliamentary scrutiny that both get shows that national insurance contributions already get substantially less consideration. That will be reinforced if the Bill is passed in its current form. Our amendments attempt to rectify the problem to some extent and without jeopardising the Government's stated objectives.
	We offer two alternative routes. Unless some mechanism is put in placerestoration of the ratio or either of the two amendmentsthe Bill will be dangerous and leave our taxation system open to abuse from a Government, whether the current one or a future Administration. We will therefore press one of the amendments to a Division, depending on the Financial Secretary's comments.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for an opportunity to speak briefly in the debate because there is a reasonable amount of consensus, which is perhaps reflected in the absence of a fevered atmosphere in the House.
	My party supports the overall principle of simplification in the tax system. We regret, however, that the simplification has been given something of a bad name by the proposals before us, because it has been achieved as a by-product of an increase in overall tax revenue of about 1.5 billion. The public respond well to the idea of being better able to understand the tax burden that is placed on them, but not when a degree of sleight of hand is deployed to relieve them of some of their income in the process. The Budget left millions of losers: more than 5 million people were net losers. I always object when people talk about the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax. In my view, the 10p rate was not abolished; it was doubled in the budgetary proposals. That is the context in which we are having this conversation today.
	National insurance is, in the view of most people who look at their payslips, to all intents and purposes a different form of income tax. We can debate at great length why it is different because of how it is calculated and when it is collected, but when people look at the total amount of their pay before taxation, I think that most would agree that the two amounts taken off at the bottom of their payslip have a broadly similar effect.
	The 7.5 per cent. multiplier acts as a useful restraint on the Government and perhaps prevents some sleights of handor, to go a bit further, potential abusesthat might otherwise take place. The view that I took in Committee, and continue to take today, is that removing that multiplier at the upper limitthe 6.5 to 7.5 per cent. bandwill present certain hazards of which we should be mindful. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) ran through them for our benefit this afternoon.
	The hon. Gentleman has effectively tabled two amendments on this matter. Amendment No. 8, which links the increases to the rate of inflation, is the better of the two, and my party would be minded to support it for the reasons that he gave, and because we wish to see proper scrutiny and some restraint placed on this Government and future Governments in this regard. I understand the motivation behind amendment No. 10, but I am perhaps slightly less optimistic than he is about the effectiveness of a process that would involve the Treasury conducting a review of itself before taking any action. My inclination is to believe that such a review would conclude what those who had set up the review wished it to conclude, at its inception.

David Gauke: I should like to make a point in defence of amendment No. 10. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a question of factI believe that there is sufficient certainty for this to be practicalwhether the upper earnings limit exceeds the point at which higher rate income tax becomes payable? If that were simply a question of fact, and not one of interpretation, it would be unfair to suggest that the Treasury would not look at the matter with complete integrity. This is therefore a test that has sufficient certainty at the very least. This is not a complicated matter; it is a question of doing some sums. Given that we should set the requirement that the Treasury do the sums, I am confident that it would come back with the correct answer.

Jeremy Browne: I am genuinely gratefulI am not merely expressing the customary courtesy of the Houseto the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It was most useful. I take his point that, if we were measuring something that was a matter of facta numberthe review would have much less scope for flexible interpretation.
	The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer earlier to a comment that I made in Committeethat if the Government of the day wanted greater flexibility at the top of the range, they could achieve that by increasing the number at the bottom of the range. The 7.5 per cent. multiplier would therefore go higher up the scale, if one wished to see it in those terms. I regret that the Government are seeking extra leeway in regard to placing a tax burden on people earning about 40,000, but not seeking to establish a corresponding loosening of the tax burden on those at the lower end of the scale who would benefit the most from being able to spend a greater proportion of their own money as they saw fit.
	That said, I do not think that this Bill is the most controversial item of legislation that we will consider in this Session of Parliament [Interruption.]or even this week. It is worth scrutinising properly, however. We looked at it in detail in Committee and I continue to take the view that, although the Government are not seeking to abuse their position, the safeguards in the amendments provide a useful way of ensuring that that remains the case in the future as well.

Peter Viggers: The attitude of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) to the Bill is fairly friendly, but mine is not. I believe it to be a nasty little Bill, whose effect will be to impose taxation of 1.5 billion on those earning between 37,000 and 43,000. It was introduced as an afterthoughtor rather to give the appearance of being an afterthoughtto the Budget. The amendments so ably spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) would be effective in helping in one way, but the main thrust of the damage will remain.

Jeremy Browne: To clarify my earlier point, one may or may not believe that the changes in taxation are objectionableI happen to think that there is some sense in not having a huge dip in the marginal rates of someone earning 38,000; the rates are more advantageous than for someone earning 28,000as one can legitimately debate them. However, I was saying that the Bill to enable the Government to make those changes is not necessarily as objectionable as the hon. Gentleman might find the changes themselves.

Peter Viggers: Indeed, but for this Government, harmonisation is always harmonisation up in respect of taxation rather than harmonisation down or evenly.
	The origin of the lower and upper earnings limit and the six and a half and seven and a half multiple limit on the size of the UEL lies, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire pointed out, in the transition from national insurance contributions to an earnings-related contributory system in the mid-1970s. When national insurance contributions were first introduced in 1911, they were flat rate and continued to be so until world war two, although they were varied by age and sex. Partially earnings-linked graduated contributions were added to the structure in 1961, but it was not until 1975, as my hon. Friend said, that national insurance contributions became fully related to earnings. As part of that reform, lower and upper earnings limits for contributions liability were introduced.
	A lower limit was required for practical and administrative reasons and to concentrate contributions and benefits on people who depended substantially on income from work. The lower limit was linked to the level of the basic retirement pension and an upper limit was required to prevent excessive burdens and the acquisition of very high benefit entitlements. Those limits had been set in statute and considerable thought was given to them, as my hon. Friend noted, in the 1975 legislation. At that time, the Government deliberately set themselves a longer-term framework within which national insurance contributions were to be levied.
	The press notice put out by the Treasury at the time of the Budget is worth citing:
	Current Social Security legislation requires the maximum UEL to be less than seven and a half times the Primary Threshold. The Primary Threshold is the point at which Class 1 NICs become due. Changes to the UEL below this amount are made by Regulations annually. Any change to the UEL above this maximum requires primary legislation in a NICs Programme Bill,
	which is, of course, what we are facing now. It continues:
	The first step in the alignment of the UEL...with the amount at which higher rate tax is payable will be made in 2008 by Regulations and the Re-rating Order respectively. The second step for the UEL alignment will be made in a NICs Programme Bill in time for a start date of April 2009.
	By setting a framework that made it necessary for the Government to come back to the House with primary legislation before raising the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit, the Government deliberately set themselves a structure that would be self-inhibiting in preventing them from raising taxes lightlybecause national insurance contributions are indeed a tax.
	My hon. Friend has pointed out the deliberately cumbersome legislative programme that would be necessary were the seven and a half times limit to be broken. For us to agree, as the legislation proposes, that it should be possible for the Government to come back by way of affirmative resolution would make it so much easier for them to increase the burden of taxation on individuals in this country.
	The amendments proposed by my hon. Friendof those, I prefer amendment No. 8are well judged. Amendment No. 10 would oblige the Treasury to audit its own procedures, which might introduce a rod for its own back, had it not fulfilled the requirements of those procedures. I do not share my hon. Friend's confidence that the Treasury could do that and create, as it were, a burden for itself. I much prefer amendment No. 8, which I strongly support.

Jane Kennedy: I thank the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) for tabling the amendments. I also compliment the House business managers, who arranged for this debate to take place after the debate on Holocaust memorial day. That allowed me to come and listen to one of the best debates I have heard for a long timeafter this one, of course.
	The amendments are prompted by concern that the Bill will somehow reduce parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation setting the upper earnings limit, by abolishing the restriction. As Opposition Members described, that restriction limits the raising of the upper earnings limit to seven and a half times the primary threshold. The hon. Gentleman advanced his case in a spirit of helpfulness, for which I am grateful, and broadly based his arguments around the premise that Britain should be protected from a Government who might be motivated to use the upper earnings limit as a tax-raising opportunity, if it were not tied in some way to the lower limit.
	It is perhaps worth noting that there was once an upper earnings limit for employersMembers will know that national insurance contributions are paid by employees and by employersbut in 1985 the Government abolished it. The abolition of that upper limit and the introduction of that principle netted the Government 1 billion at 1985 prices. It is also worth noting that that proposal was not in their manifesto. I make those remarks gently.
	The point that the hon. Gentleman made and the principle that he put forward are valid for debate, and I am sure that we would be advancing those arguments were I in his post, but we should take a moment to describe what happened. Historically, the lower earnings limit was set at a quarter of average earnings, whereas the upper earnings limit was set at one and a half times average earnings. That ratio was broadly maintained, but greater flexibility was introduced when the lower earnings limit was statutorily linked to the basic category A state pension. Its uprating then followed the switch from the link with earnings to that with prices.
	Treasury Ministers announce the NICs rates and thresholds for the forthcoming year at or around the pre-Budget report. The Government Actuary's Department then produces a report on the impact on the national insurance fund of the changes announced, particularly whether the balance of the fund will be 17 per cent. of benefit expenditure, because the fund cannot borrow.
	The report is then laid before Parliament, and a set of regulations and an order, which make the changes to national insurance rates and thresholds, are laid in January, or thereabouts. I think the next measure to be debated will be dealt with in February. The Department for Work and Pensions then lays regulations, which change the contributory benefit rates at the same time. Decisions made in this context are often scrutinised not just publicly but in the House. The timing of the regulations gives employers and payroll providers time to prepare for 6 April. I made that point in Committee, and I note that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has accepted some of the case that I made then. Like the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who is not in the Chamberno doubt he has been called awayhe was keen to ensure that proper scrutiny took place.
	We are not attempting a sleight of hand or a Macchiavellian move. Our intention is to align the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions with lower tax rates, and to align the higher limit with higher tax rates. Our purpose is to simplify the tax process, not to use it as a potential for future tax increases.
	All income tax changes are discussed at length in the Budget and Finance Bill debates. National insurance contributions have always been arranged by means of regulation, and over time that has proved an effective way of allowing parliamentary scrutiny. Although such scrutiny never seems adequate to those in opposition, I assure the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire that a Minister feels well scrutinised as a result of statutory instrument debates. If on occasion they do not last as long as they might, that may be because the issues are not as controversial as people fear that they might be if the Government abused the process.
	A strong case has been made for amendment No. 8, which aims to restrict the rise in the upper earnings limit. I realise that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has changed the proposed date in response to what I said in Committee, but we have similar problems with this amendment. We would not be able to align the upper earnings limit for 2009-10 with the point at which higher rate income tax becomes payable, which we announced that we would do in the 2007 Budget. The limit could not be raised by 800 plus the retail prices index. That would remove the main purpose of our Bill, and a significant simplification of the tax and national insurance contributions system would be lost.
	Accepting the amendment would cost about 700 million, which is no mean matter. That would restrict the Government's ability to take further action on, for instance, child poverty and lifting pensioners out of tax, as proposed in the personal tax package announced in the 2007 Budget.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) described this as a mean little BillI paraphrase his commentsand spoke of the tax hit on those earning at or above the upper earnings limit. I can reassure him that the large majority of taxpayers will be no worse off, as the reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 22p to 20pthe lowest rate for more than 75 yearswill compensate for the increased amount of national insurance that they will pay.

Peter Viggers: I think the Financial Secretary said that no one would be worse off, but the statistics show that 5.3 million people will be worse off. She told the Committee that 3.5 million people would be worse off by less than 3 a week, which meansif my arithmetic is correctthat 1.8 million people will be worse off by more than 3 a week. Is that correct?

Jane Kennedy: I did not seek to imply that nobody would be worse off, but the vast majority of taxpayers and pensioners will be better off as a result of the reforms in the 2007 Budget. Most employees earning at the upper earnings limit or above will be better off, using the 2008-09 tax year as an example. The loss of the starting rate band means that they are better off by 232 per annum. The raising of the upper earnings limit to 770 means that they are better off to the tune of 390 a year. The reduction of the basic rate to 20 per cent. means that they are 673 worse off. So overall they are 51.60 a year better off.
	There are groups that are worse offabout 300,000 taxpayers at the upper earnings limitand I have answered questions recently that make that clear. We anticipate, however, that the vast majority would be better off or no worse off as a result. Our intention in making the changes was to introduce a much simpler personal tax systemone of the simplest in Europe and the developed world.
	Amendment No. 10 would also amend clause 1, and is an alternative to amendment No. 8. It would allow the upper earnings limit to be set without the current restrictions and subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. However, it would then introduce the review, which we have had exchanges about. Under the amendment, after the regulations came into force the review would examine whether the upper earnings limit calculated on an annual basis exceeds the level of earnings at which higher rate tax becomes payable. If there is such a difference, the Treasury would need to make new regulations by the following January that would apply from the following April. Broadly, that is what the amendment asks us to undertake.
	In principle, I have no objection to the Treasury's reviewing its work. It conducts such work thoroughly and there should be no reason for anybody to doubt the integrity of any review, but the amendment is unnecessary. The upper earnings limit and the level of the higher rate tax threshold will be announced at the time of the pre-Budget report. Announcing the levels then is necessary in order for changes to national insurance contributions legislation, guidance and software changes to payroll systems to be put in place for the next tax year. The regulations that set the level of the upper earnings limit will already be subject to affirmative resolution. I have argued that that is a perfectly proper means of parliamentary scrutiny.
	The change suggested by the amendment would be inconsistent with the Bill's objective, which is to allow alignment of the upper earnings limit with the level at which higher rate tax is paid. The change proposed in the Bill should not give any cause for concern in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. We have the necessary parliamentary controls in place because the regulations will be subject to careful scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. The Bill provides the correct balance between allowing appropriate scrutiny and not putting pressure on limited parliamentary time for other legislative objectives. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will withdraw the amendment.

David Gauke: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for her thoughtful response. That has been characteristic of the tone throughout the progress of the Bill; we have managed to maintain a reasonably cordial and thoughtful approach. However, I must respond to one or two points. On her comment that the employers' upper earnings limit was abolished in 1985, I am running the risk of asking a question when not knowing the answer, but I do not know what the process was and whether it was done through primary legislation. The essence of my argument is that if steps such as those we are discussing are to be taken, that must be done through primary legislation. I should add that I was probably 13 at the time, so I do not feel too responsible for what was done then. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were present, he might be able to tell us more.
	I shall deal with the Financial Secretary's arguments on amendments Nos. 8 and 10. She makes the case that national insurance contributions were debated on a large number of occasions, but again, they were all during Committee. She says that such contributions have always been handled by regulation, but that has always been done within the framework of the restrictions that I described.
	The Financial Secretary's argument on amendment No. 10 was essentially that it is unnecessary and that there is no cause for concern. I shall not repeat my arguments as to why there is a cause for concern, because we will not reach agreement. She also said that it was inconsistent with the objective of aligning the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit with the point at which one starts paying higher rate income tax. The purpose of amendment No. 10 is to ensure that they are aligned. As long as they are aligned, the procedure set out in amendment No. 10 will not come into play, so I am not convinced by her argument.
	I am often convinced by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), with whom I served on the Treasury Committee for some months. I always listen closely to his remarks. The fact that they coincided with the comments made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) is neither here nor there. He particularly liked amendment No. 8.
	The Financial Secretary's arguments against amendment No. 8 seemed to be that the Government's objectives in increasing the upper earnings limit could not be fulfilled. I acknowledge that point, but I can see no reason why the Government could not table a further amendment in the other place to enable them to do what they need to do for 2009-10I believe that was the year to which she referred. There is no need for legislation for 2008-09, because the ratio would still apply. I do not find her arguments on amendment No. 8 convincing. Given the mood of the House and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, I am inclined to press amendment No.8, rather than amendment No. 10, to a Division.
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 148, Noes 260.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have reached the final stage of this House's deliberations on the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which will ensure that the personal tax package can be fully operative. I think that it will be helpful if I outline the details of the package again, as some hon. Members have focused on only a few aspects of it.
	Since 1997, the Government have delivered a comprehensive programme of reforms to the tax and benefit system. Their aim has been to simplify the system, to tackle child and pensioner poverty and to make work pay. Budget 2007 announced the next stage of the reforms as part of a rebalancing of the tax system to offer more support for work, families and pensioners.
	The package simplified income tax and national insurance contributions. It increased the personal allowances for those aged 65 and over, and it changed the rates and threshold for child tax credit and working tax credit. It was carefully balanced, so that the tax credit changes focus on those whose need is greatest, including low-income families with children. The personal tax changes provide a simpler system with a modest impact on most sectors, and increased support to pensioners over 65. Each change should not be looked at in isolation.
	Alongside producing the lowest basic rate of tax for over 75 years and one of the simplest personal structures in the developed world, that package results in four out of five households being better or no worse off, with the average household gaining 100 per year. A lone parent with one child will see their annual gain from returning to work rise by up to 350, and 200,000 children have been removed from poverty. Households with children in the poorest fifth of the population will be on average 340 per year better off, and around 600,000 fewer pensioners will pay income tax than would otherwise be the case, so that in total only 43 per cent. of pensioners will be taxpayers.
	In helping to deliver that package, the Bill first allows the upper earnings limit to be aligned with the point at which higher-rate tax starts to be paid, significantly simplifying the United Kingdom's tax and national insurance contribution systems. From April 2009 there will be just two main rates of income tax, and they will apply to the same bands of income as the two rates of national insurance contributions, creating one of the simplest personal tax structures of any developed country.
	Secondly, the proposals in the Bill are central to the Government's commitment to provide a solid and simpler state pension. By bringing forward the introduction of the upper accrual point, the Bill returns the timetable for the removal of earnings-related state second pension to that recommended by the Pensions Commission. That will mean that by around 2030 the complex earnings-related structure of the state second pension will be withdrawn, leaving a flat-rate scheme that will be simple to administer and to understand for both contributors and pensioners.
	I got a little carried away during my earlier contribution; I blame it on the flu. In trying to reassure the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), which I patently failed to do, on winners and losers in respect of the upper earnings limit, I got the figures the wrong way round. The loss of the starting rate band and the upper earnings limit being raised mean that those people are worse off by the amounts that I gave. However, they are better off as a result of the basic rate being introduced at 20 per cent. I know that he knew that; he just did not want to cause me embarrassment in the debate. However, I was right to say that, overall, they will be 51.60 better off.
	I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which this Bill has been debated. It is a short Bill. It makes the two changes that I have described, for the reasons we have debated. I am pleased to be able to conclude that the Bill has had thorough scrutiny. As I have said, I have been impressed by the constructive contributions. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate.

David Gauke: As the Financial Secretary said, we have had some good scrutiny of the Bill, but Opposition Members remain concerned about what the Bill seeks to achieve and the manner in which that is being done. As the right hon. Lady also said, there are two elements to the Bill. The first relates to taxation, in the sense of the change to the provisions on the upper earnings limit. The second relates to changes to pensions.
	On the first point, we have already debated at some lengthI do not intend to repeat the points that were madeour concerns about the lack of proper scrutiny that may occur should there be other increases in the upper earnings limit, and the fact that the restrictions in existing legislation provide some protection to ensure that there is an opportunity in this House, and particularly within this Chamber, to examine any changes to the upper earnings limit. There is no doubt that the Bill will weaken that ability, and we are considerably concerned about it.
	It has not been an entirely happy week for the House of Commons, to put it mildly. I do not want to be hyperbolic, as there have been other issues of even greater concern, but we are unhappy about the effect of these provisions on future scrutiny. There is a broader point about the increase in the upper earnings limit: it is a stealth tax increase, part of what turned out to be the Prime Minister's final Budget as Chancellor, in which he produced a rabbit out of a hat for political effect, and 1.5 billion a year will be raised from middle earners as a result.

Adam Holloway: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in effect legislating for a 1.5 billion tax rise? We were told that the Bill would simplify the tax system, end child poverty, address inequalities in our society and so on, but it is a tax increase, not for the super-rich but, yet again, for middle-income families.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have been rather consensual this afternoon, as we were in Committee, when discussing areas of disagreement between us and the Government, but some of the debate on Second Reading was slightly more feisty, and the accusation was made that the Conservatives, in raising concerns, were on the side of the wealthy. Actually, as my hon. Friend points out, the people who will lose out as a consequence of both the package as a whole and the measures dealing with national insurance contributions are those who earn about 39,000 to 40,000 a year. That is certainly what the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded. So we are talking about police officersthey are not receiving a full pay increase as it issenior nurses and teachers, not the very wealthy. It is middle England, to some extent, that will suffer as a consequence of the increase.
	I want to make it clear that we do not object to aligning national insurance contributions with higher rate income tax. The idea seems sensible, and I made the point earlier that debate on the matter has been led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the shadow Chancellor. The Forsyth report, which advocated something similar, has been influential, but those proposals were based on the use of fiscally neutral measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) made clear, the measures in the Bill are not fiscally neutral. They are intended to raise more tax revenue, which we know the Government need to do. I shall not stray too far into yesterday's Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which showed that there is an 8 billion black hole in the Government's finances, and that taxes will need to increase to ensure that the Prime Minister's fiscal rules are met; the point is that the measures are primarily a tax increase, and not one that will be paid by the wealthy. Looking more broadly at the Budget 2007 packageI shall not dwell on this pointwe see that it is the low earners who make up the majority of those who will lose out.
	We know that 5 million households will lose as a consequence of the measures. I do not think that we ever got an answer to the question asked at a Committee evidence session about how many of those 5 million households would be in the 39,000 to 40,000 income range. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has an answer, but it would be interesting to know how many households within that band will lose out. Of course, it is the way in which national insurance contributions are being aligned with higher rate income tax that will cause that loss.
	The second element of the Bill is the separation of the upper accruals point from the upper earnings limit. We all speak of the consensus on all sides about the Turner package of pensions reform, and there is a fundamental consensus on the thrust of what we need to do. The reason why we have expressed concern about what the Government propose in the Bill is not because of any abandonment of the consensus, as was alleged on Second Reading. We believe that there should be a restoration of the earnings link to pensions, and have advocated that idea for some time. We have also accepted the principle of separating the upper earnings limit from the upper accruals point as part of a packageas part of a set of proposals that would enable us to finance the restoration of the earnings link.
	However, what we see in the Bill is the breaking up of that package, and we are legislating now on separating the upper accruals point from the upper earnings limit at least four years before the implementation of the restoration of that link. That will not happen until 2012, the date that the Government are working on. The Financial Secretary reiterated in Committee that it remains the intention and expectation of the Government that the link will be restored in 2012. The caveat on which the former Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, insisted was that the Government could not restore the link unless economic conditions allowed.
	Given the green budget produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one must seriously question whether those economic conditions will permit that in 2012. If not, it could be another seven years before the link is restored, yet we will already be paying the costpeople will be paying contributions to a contributory system, and their contributions will count for nothing. Those will no longer be contributions, but tax payments.
	The Pensions Policy Institute raised the issue following the 2007 Budget when national insurance contributions were increased by the increase in the upper earnings limit, and made it clear that as a consequence, unless something was done, the flat-rating would be delayed until 2035. On Second Reading and in Committee we explored in some detail whether the Treasury was fully aware that that would happen. We were told explicitly that the Treasury was aware. In the Red Book showing the financial implications of every policy announced in the Budget, the additional costs of the increase in the upper earnings limitin other words, the additional rebates that would be paid to funds for those who had opted out of the second state pensionwere scored.
	That being the case, it is surprising that the Treasury, which with the left hand had identified that there was an issue, had not done more with the right hand to address it. It was conceded by the Treasury officialswhom I take this opportunity to thank for their clear evidence and their help to the Committeethat the Red Book made no explicit reference to the problem. We know that the Treasury was aware of it, yet no proposals were made at the time of the 2007 Budget. One cannot help concluding that the 2007 Budget package was somewhat rushed, and that not all the implications were appreciated or, if they were, not all the necessary mitigating steps were taken to address those consequences. That Budget looks increasingly flawed

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill, not the 2007 Budget.

David Gauke: I take your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I move swiftly on to our essential concern about that second element of the Bill. A number of peoplenot the very wealthywill be paying more in contributions but not receiving the benefit, because they will reach the upper accruals point. We have asked one question throughout. The Government's explanation is that we need to ensure that we revert to 2030-31 as the point at which flat-rating comes in. What has never been satisfactorily explained is why that 2030-31 date is so important. I appreciate that it was part of the original Turner package, but that was based on the assumption that the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit was not going to be increased as it subsequently was. Why was 2030-31 so sacrosanct that it had to be maintained?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), who is detained on important constituency business today, raised that very question in Committee. The Minister answered that it would have led to higher earners receiving a greater than intended benefit for the state second pension. That is absolutely right, but those higher earners, as she describes them, were contributing more in national insurance contributions than had been anticipated. Why should they not also receive additional benefits? I hope that that point will be explored further in another place.
	The Bill will raise additional revenue from national insurance contributions. It will weaken Parliament's ability to scrutinise further tax increases in this area, and it means thatin a manner not anticipated by the Turner report and the consensus that arose from itpeople will pay more in national insurance contributions but not receive additional benefits as a consequence. For those reasons we remain concerned that the Bill is flawed, and we will oppose Third Reading.

Jeremy Browne: Today is 31 January, and tax simplification is probably on the minds of many millions of our fellow citizens. In my party there is an appetite for greater simplification of the tax system, and since 1997 we have consistently criticised the Government on the issue.

Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Browne: I shall give way to any Member who has taken an interest in the Bill for the past few hours; otherwise, I shall make progress.
	A criticism that can be made of the Government in respect of the past 11 years or so is that a lot of additional complication has been added to the system; if some of that is now being reversed, that is welcome. I suppose I can boil our criticisms down to four succinct points. First, the simplification has come with a large sleight of hand; as has been pointed out, the Bill is part of a process that enables the Government to raise something in the order of 1.5 billion of additional revenue.
	The situation was fairly anomalous before, when the marginal rate of tax being paid by people earning in the region of 38,000 or 39,000 was considerably higher than that paid by those earning in the region of 28,000 or 29,000. That dip in the graph in that income area could have been seen by many on lower incomes as being unfair on them if they took the view, as I do, that national insurance contributions are, to all intents and purposes, income tax under a different guise. I understand the argument that they are not the same because they are calculated and levied on a different basis. However, many people looking at their payslips at the end of the month will find it anomalous that some people on higher incomes pay lower marginal rates than some of those on lower incomes. I understand the logic of that aspect of the changes, but had the simplification been revenue-neutral, it would have been more widely welcomed than this measure, which combines it with a large additional tax take.
	Our second objection is that abandoning the multiplier of 7.5 per cent., which Members who have been consistently interested in the Bill have discussed at length, represents a loss of discipline. It is always easier to loosen one's belt than to regulate one's diet. The Government would have been better advised, having raised the level of tax take beyond what would have been considered conceivable by Chancellors prior to this Government's coming to office, to look more often at how they can maintain and impose greater discipline on themselves instead of looking at ways to raise the tax take further.
	My third point has been discussed at length by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke)the ability of this House to scrutinise changes that may take place in future. We share the concerns that Conservative Members have expressed in that regard. Even if one takes the view that the current Government are benign and benevolent in all their intentionscertainly, most people take that view of the Financial Secretary, if not of the Governmentone can see that it is nevertheless desirable that safeguards should be put in place to prevent future abuses. I think that most people would agree that those safeguards are now less onerous than would otherwise have been the case.
	My fourth point is about part 2, which we have not discussed at such length. As the Conservative spokesman said, as regards the state pension we are getting the pain at least four years before we get the gain. He did not say, of course, because Conservatives never do, that the need to reconnect the link with earnings and price increases has come about because the Conservative party broke it in the first place. Passing over that for the time being, it remains the case that these provisions are being coupled together in the minds of the public, yet we cannot expect the state pension to have that link restored until 2012 at the earliest. My party does not think that the provisions in the Bill are sufficient for pensioners, particularly poorer pensioners and women pensioners.
	The Bill is not the most controversial measure, principally because it is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Those who object to the Chancellor's Budget and to the Government's overall tax policy, and have rushed into the Chamber to make those objections, have good reasons to do so in many cases, and those are legitimate debates. However, the Bill is about enabling these changes to take place, and that is a separate argument from whether the changes have merit in themselves. I have plenty of views about the merits of the Government's policies and their last Budget. I also have reservations about aspects of the Bill that I feel less strongly about. The Bill is not particularly controversial, but it does have limitations that give us cause for concern; that is why we will not support it.

Mark Field: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne). I suspect I may be getting into the spirit of things, and perhaps reflecting the concerns that my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) wished to raise earlier, when I say that the fact that the hon. Member for Taunton is here on his own shows either that his 62 fellow Liberal Democrats are convinced of the case for simplification or that they are all hurriedly filling in their tax returns in advance of the deadline this evening.
	One way or another, it has been a pleasure to have served briefly on the Committee considering this Bill. The evidence session that we had was an excellent innovation. It was the first time I had dealt with a Bill where there was quite that level of interplay between Ministers, officials and Members of Parliament. Such sessions are considerably more revealing than the stylised debate form, even within the relatively informal surroundings of a Public Bill Committee. The session that we had allowed some deeper questioning, and far more clarity. That ensured that the process was rather more revealing and, I suspect, more straightforward than it would have been if we had to constrain comments within the confines of stylised amendments. It was a useful process, and I thank the Minister and her officials for ensuring that we had that sort of debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) made some important points in his contribution today, and in Committee. He repeatedly pressed the Minister on the changes made in the 2007 Budget, and on the fact that there were clearly winners and losers thanks to the changes. It seemed to me that the Financial Secretary accepted that there would be as many as 5.3 million losers due to the budgetary changes, as stated by a senior civil servant to the Treasury Committee. It was interesting, however, that the Prime Minister refuted that figure. We will see how matters pan out.
	The debate on national insurance and pensions is important. It will go on for many years and decades to come, so it is perhaps a little perverse that the Government have rather hysterically held on to this idea that we must have everything sorted out by 2031. I respect the idea, and very much agree with it, that we need long-term thinking in this area, but the world of work, pensions, national insurance and taxation will be very different in 23 years' time. If we consider the situation almost a quarter of a century ago, we find that the accepted norms of tax rates were higher, and that we were living in a less globalised world. One thing of which we can be sure is that the next 23 years will bring even greater change, with the emergence of China and India as great economic superpowers

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is going wide of the Bill. I hope that he will confine his remarks on Third Reading to the matters contained in the Bill.

Mark Field: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand duly admonished by you. With that in mind, the concept of simplification is very much to be admired, whether in speaking style or in relation to the Third Reading of the Bill.
	I support the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire that we vote against the Bill because there is a sneaking doubt on the part of myself and my colleagues that it is driven by a desire to raise revenue more than anything else. As the hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, a mechanism could have been put in place to ensure that the process was revenue-neutral, instead of raising 1.5 billion or more as a back-door tax increase.
	The Bill is very useful, but I hope that it is a starting point for a broader debate that needs to take place on fiscal drag. There are now almost 4 million people who pay higher-rate tax, compared with just 2 million just 10 years ago. I am probably taking words out of the Minister's mouth, but she may suggest that that is a sign of great affluence, and there is an element of truth in that. However, it seems to me that the lowest-paid in our society pay far too much tax as it is. It is not just an issue for higher-rate tax payers, but for those at the lower end of the band. Detailed thought is required, through this sort of legislation and in Finance Bills in years to come, to ensure that the lowest-paid pay far less tax. Certainly in my constituency in central London, taxation is a massive disincentive to the lowest-paid, especially those in social housing, to get any job, notwithstanding benefits such as tax credits and the minimum wage.
	I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book, as I am sure it will. We will vote against it and I hope that some of our arguments will hold sway in the House of Lords and that the Government will make some of the changes that we suggested.

Peter Viggers: I do not look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book. It is a nasty little measure. The Exchequer Secretary described it as a technical measure and, although it is short, it is complicated. A website on the subject begins: Prepare to be baffled. It says that the state second pension is the most ridiculously complicated benefit on the face of the planet.
	Prepare to be baffled is the correct phrase, as is Prepare to be taxed. The Bill will especially disadvantage those who earn between 37,000 and 43,000. As has been said, the overall measures in the Budget, including the Bill, will involve raising a tax of some 1.5 billion and creating 5.3 million losers. The Financial Secretary has pointed out that 3.5 million of those losers will lose less than 3 a week, but it follows that 1.8 million people will lose more than 3 a week.
	Hon. Members will remember the French statesman Talleyrand, who was widely believed to be incapable to telling the truth. He was extremely devious and everyone tried to work out a second motive for everything that he did. When he died in 1838, Metternich is reported to have said, I wonder what he meant by that. I felt that way when I listened for more than 10 years to the Budgets of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister.
	Let me quote from the Budget speech of 21 March 2007. The then Chancellor said that he was
	creating a tax system for income that has just two rates and two thresholds.
	He also said that he was creating a system
	to reward work, to ensure working families are better off and to make the tax system fairer.[ Official Report, 21 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 827-28.]
	First, he said the basic rate of tax would be cut by 2 percentage points from 22 to 20 per cent. and the 10 per cent. starting rate of income tax on earnings would be abolished from 2008-09. Consequently, income tax and earnings would be charged at two ratesthe basic rate of tax at 20 per cent. and the higher rate at 40 per cent.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I was allowing what I believed to be a passing reference, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are considering Third Reading of the National Contributions Bill. Perhaps he will relate his remarks accordingly.

Peter Viggers: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer also saidthis is the key point, leading to the introduction of this Billthat the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions would be aligned with the higher rate threshold. It is those words alone that led to the Bill. My quote showed the then Chancellor's typically glutinous preening, which contrasted with the comments that are behind the Bill.
	It would have been helpful if the then Chancellor had developed the capacity for telling things the way they were. He made a great pitch for presenting the whole picture to the House. He made a great point about simplifying. He said that the upper earnings limit for national insurance would be aligned with the higher rate threshold for tax. However, he was not genuinely simplifying. He is simply bringing the rates togetheraligning the rates but not the systems. Two systems remainan annual taxation system and a weekly system for national insurance. It was therefore incorrect to claim that he was simplifying.
	The system remains too complicated. We were told that the Bill and the other measures relating to the 2007 Budget were part of a package. We have been told many times, including today by the Financial Secretary, that we must look at the relief of child poverty and at lifting pensioners out of poverty. Child poverty is rather a misleading expression. A child might ask his father, Daddy, are we quite rich?, to which the reply might be, Well, I'm quite rich, but you, like all children, are incredibly poor. We are not talking about child poverty; we are talking about family poverty, which includes children. The expression is therefore misleading.
	Tax is too complicated at the moment. Pensioner tax credit take-up is very low, and for Ministers to

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he must relate his remarks to the contents of this Bill.

Peter Viggers: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill is of course part of the overall Budget measures, and this is a revenue-raising issue. The amount of tax, and revenue generally, taken by the Budget is too high. The Bill is part of that

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That might well be the hon. Gentleman's view, but I must remind him once again that it is pertinent to discuss only the contents of this Bill on Third Reading.

Peter Viggers: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I oppose the Bill, which, among other things, will give the Government the opportunity to raise further national insurance contributions without coming back to the House and introducing primary legislation. One of the purposes of the Bill is to allow the Government to come back with regulations to increase national insurance, and on that basis and for the other reasons that I have given, I shall readily vote against it on Third Reading.

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers). He was right to point out the larger context in which we should place the Bill, and the errors that we have found creeping into the last Budget that we have been faced with. It is important to put in context the consequences of the Bill to the person in the high street and the people in our constituency. These consequences must be placed in the context of council taxes, increased fuel bills and so forth. This is not a tax-neutral measure, as the Government would have us believe. They might be able to convince the Labour Members that it is, using the figures in the Red Book, but the middle-income earners who will be hit by it will end up out of pocket.
	We strongly support the idea of tax simplification. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport pointed out, we have a very complicated tax system, and it behoves us all to try to simplify it. There is a consequence to the Bill, however; it is the price tag that is associated with it. That is why the Conservatives will not support it on Third Reading.
	If we were to ask any of our constituents exactly what national insurance contributions were, I doubt that they would be able to give us a proper definition. Some might say that they were supposed to link in with the original desire to protect against unemployment, or that they had some connection with the health service. Others might say that they had a link with pensions. The system is now so confusing, with all its smoke and mirrors, that it is seen simply as another stealth tax. It is a confusing tax that is used to raise more funds for the Government.
	As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), the impacts of the proposals will be twofold. The first will involve the changes to the upper earnings limit. This has come about because of the curious gap that has emerged between national insurance contributions and the higher rate of income tax. Simplification of the tax system is, of course, important, but we see this as a clever way of introducing a stealth tax that will give the Government a revenue increase of about 1.5 billion, which will be taken directly from middle-income earners. It has been estimated that that will affect about 5 million households across the UK, involving people who earn between 39,000 and 40,000 a year.

David Gauke: Does my hon. Friend share my curiosity about a question that we pursued in Committee? We asked how many of the 5 million households that will lose out as a consequence of the Budget would be in that 39,000 to 40,000 range, and how many would be in the lower range, involving people earning under 18,000 a year. I do not think that we have yet had an answer to that question.

Tobias Ellwood: I know that my hon. Friend posed that and many other questions in Committee to which he did not get an answer [Interruption.] I see that I have gained the Minister's attention. Perhaps she would

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may well not have received an answer in Committee, but as I said earlier, we are now on Third Reading of this particular Bill.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I seek the Minister's indulgence to clarify how many middle-income families will be affected by the Bill. When she responds, perhaps she will allude to that important aspect. According to our calculations, the groups most affected by the Bill will be teachers, doctors, senior nurses and fire services personnel, who have just had a horrendous funding review. In Dorset, for example, firemen have an increase of only 2.5 per cent. over the next three years1 per cent. in the first year, 0.5 per cent. in the following year and

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman once again that he must relate his remarks to the content of this narrowly drawn Bill.

Tobias Ellwood: Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your clarification, but as I pointed out earlier, it is the Red Book that misleads us by ignoring some of the other factors that affect our constituents.
	The second aspect of the Bill is its impact on pensions, particularly in respect of the upper earnings accruals point, about which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire spoke at length earlier. The House will be pleased to know that I will not go into any further detail at this stage. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I am pleased to hear that confirmation. Suffice it to say that the consequence of this second aspect of the Bill is an effective raid on the rebates of the state second pension to the tune of about 400 million. That is not an insignificant amount of money for a Government who say that they want to help those groups of people.
	In conclusion, let me say that the consequence of simplifying the tax system comes with a price taga price tag of 1.5 billion.

David Gauke: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government talk about tax simplification, it is time for the rest of us to start counting the spoons?

Tobias Ellwood: Once again, my hon. Friend gives us pearls of wisdom. This is a day on which we should be returning our tax forms, and it seems that that is exactly what the Liberal Democrats, who appear to be absent, are doing. It is also a day on which a green budget has been produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, saying that there is a black hole in the nation's finances of 8 billion

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the change in Deputy Speaker will manage to persuade the hon. Gentleman that he is once again wide of the mark. If he is not going to return to the Bill, this may be a good time for him to think about concluding his remarks.

Tobias Ellwood: I will take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We are seeing not only a price tag, but a loss of scrutiny, so I recommend that every hon. Member vote against the Bill.

Jane Kennedy: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank hon. Members for their kind words to officials, and I add my own thanks for their hard work, inspiration and assistance with the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and a number of other Members berated us for taxing more higher-rate taxpayers as a result of this package, but I have to say that the fact that more higher-rate taxpayers are paying higher taxes is a sign of economic success, increased national prosperity and record employment levels. Since 1997, there have been

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister would expect me to be even-handed in these matters, so let me give her the same advice that I have given to Opposition Members.

Jane Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I have written to members of the Committee to provide the further details that were requested earlier. I leave the House with this final thought. This is what Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said about the Budget package that has been the subject of today's debate:
	To reform the system in a useful way within tight financial constraints and with only modest gains and losses should be a cause for congratulation rather than criticism.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 147.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

Smoking Ban (Rossendale)

Janet Anderson: The petition is from the regular customers of the Swan hotel in Bacup, Rossendale, in my constituency. It has been signed by 93 of them and it expresses concern about the effect on their daily lives of the smoking ban.
	Bacup is famous for many things, such as the Britannia coconutters, the Rossendale Academy of Arts and the fact that it provided the location for Juliet Bravo, but above all it is famous for its community spirit. The Swan hotel regulars tell me that since the ban was introduced at least a good third of their social friends have stopped coming as a direct result, and the social atmosphere in the pub has drastically diminished. Smokers and non-smokers alike are finding that the ban serves no purpose whatever, other than nibbling away at the social cohesion that has taken many years to evolve.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of customers of the Swan Hotel, Bacup, Rossendale,
	 Declares that the smoking ban is having an adverse effect on the social structure and enjoyment within their local pub, the Swan Hotel; they consider it a valuable asset within the local community.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce amending legislation to provide for the landlord of the Swan Hotel placing a sign on his door depicting the pub as a 'smoking establishment' giving customers the right to choose whether to enter or not.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000113]

DATA ENCRYPTION (CHILD ABUSE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. David.]

Paul Beresford: Perhaps I should reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to use the opportunity to speak until 6.30 pm.
	I thank the Minister for attending this debate. I anticipated that a Minister from another Department would attend, because I am raising this issue on the basis of a new clause that I tried to propose to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill on Report. It was chopped when it ran out of time under our favourite procedurethe guillotine. I therefore hoped that a Minister from the Ministry of Justice would respond today, but I welcome this Minister because he understands the problem. In a funny way, we have worked on the same sorts of campaign on various causes. We have been on the same side in trying to protect children from paedophiles.
	I have been working quietly, but I hope with some effect, on this matter for perhaps a decade. I want to touch on something that is developing into a problem as technology moves forward. It is well known that paedophiles take and collect child abuse photos. The photos used to be in the form of hard copiestaken by box Brownies and so onbut things moved on to videos and now to digital. Such images are now kept on computers, CD-ROM, DVDs and other form of digital storage. Digital is used as an opportunity to download informationpictures and so onfrom websites. Paedophiles swap their pictures over the internet, and take their own photos. Many such images are acquired by the website groups that these individuals join to produce new photographs. One must remember that every single photograph is of a child being abused, and there are millions of these photographs.
	Several things have changed over recent years. First, demand has increased, and that includes the demand of these individuals for new material. I understand from talking to the police that the other thing that has changed is the level of the photographs' depravitythe depths being plumbed are getting lower and lower. Every so many weeks the police will say, I have never seen anything as bad as this. When TV programmes talk about protecting children, they mean teenage children, but demand is increasing for younger and younger children, even down to infants and babies.
	The point that I want to emphasise tonight is the introduction of encryption. I have discussed the issue with police experts and even with the National Technical Assistance CentreNTACwhose job is to act on behalf of the police and the security forces to break encryption. I understand from one of NTAC's directors that the proportion of child abuse material that has been encrypted is increasing. One of the points made is that as the demand on NTAC is increasing, its budget seems to be decreasingbut then one would expect the head of such a department to say that.
	Encryption used to be difficult, but over the past few years it has been possible to download 128 and then 256-bit encryption freely on the net. What is making the situation worse is the fact that the previously complicated procedures required are becoming simpler. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that the new Windows Vista Professional contains a system that means that the moment one turns one's computer off, everything on it is encrypted. So if the police are to have any hope of getting much data from these computers, CD-ROMs and so on, they must get their hands on the computers when they are still running. Otherwise, they are sent off to NTAC to try to break the code.
	The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 gave us some hope. It introduced a penalty of two years' imprisonment for failure to provide the key. Sadly, the relevant part of the Act has only just been enacted, and I am aware of that because I was so concerned that I helped with the consultation. With a bit of encouragement from meto put it mildlythe consultation included a suggestion that a higher penalty should be imposed when the failure to provide the key to encrypted material concerned child abuse material. I enjoined some of the officials at a meeting to try to help to persuade concerned representatives from the City who, on understanding the point that I was making, accepted it.
	On Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, I raised my idea as a possibility, and I received a written response. In essence, it said, Wait and see, we want to see how the change is working. Well, it is not working, and it is blindingly obvious why it is not working. The police can say to offenders, If you do not produce the key, you could go to prison for up to two years. But most of the material being hidden would put offenders away for five years or more and put them on the sex offenders list. It is an obvious choice to make, and they do not produce the key.
	I shall give the Minister a current example. An individual is going to court next month. He was arrested in mid-2006. He and a colleague were going to go to France, and they had written out a plan of how they would attack, grab, seduce or abuse French children. Fortunately, for French and English children, the man and his colleague were caught. The police went to the man's home and found some abuse files, not many, but his computer contained another 150GB of encrypted material. I asked a friend of mine who works at IBM what that would mean if the files were all single photographs taken by a straightforward camera of the sort that many of these people use. He said that it could be as many as 750,000 single photographs. I was staggered, but my police colleagues said that it was not unusual.
	In this particular case, the need is more urgent. This individual has babysat a little girl, aged three. The police know, from a physical examination, that the girl has been abused. By a process of elimination, the individual is almost certainly the abuser. The little girl will be no use in court as a witness. The only way to catch him would be to break the code on the 150GB of material. He has been approached with the warning about two years, and it would be excessively polite to render his response as No. He would rather serve two years and not reveal the data. The police want the data, partly because of the three-year-old girl, but also because if there are other children's faces in there, they might be able to find them and help them.
	I then decided to propose the new clause. It is straightforward, and would increase the penalty from two years to five years. The new penalty would apply in any one of three circumstances. First, it would apply if the offender had been convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Secondly, it would apply if the offender's computer or a similar source of data was being examined and it was apparent that it contained at least some images of the abuse of a child. Thirdly, it would apply if the court was satisfied, according to the civil standard, that the protected data were likely to include an indecent photograph of a childI shall not go through all the details of that. We did not reach my new clause during our discussions in this place, but I have received the agreement of those on my Front Bench that it will be tabled in another place when the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill reaches the appropriate stage of its consideration.
	I want the penalty to be increased to five years. In fact, even though such an aspiration is probably unrealistic, I want it to be increased to 10 years. Men and women who do such things to children need to be put away out of the reach of children for as long as possible. I do not know the legal ramifications, but such cases often come up when the individual appears before a court for other child abuse problems. On conviction, it would be very nice if the penalty in such cases was consecutive and not concurrent.
	I ask the Minister not to give us 15 minutes of soothing words, for all our sakes. I expect him to be sympathetic, because I know him and I know his attitude. I want my new clause to be passed on to the Secretary of State for Justice, either so that he can back it and explain the need for it or so that an equivalent amendment can be introduced in the Government's name.
	In the past, amendments that I have proposed have been refused in this House but have gone through in another place in a slightly different form and in the Government's name. I do not mind that, because I want an increased battery of legal equipment to deal with paedophiles.

Tim Loughton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work he has done on the subject in collaboration with the Minister and the Government. I entirely agree that in relation to the vile crimes to which he is referring, the punishment in cases that involve this technicality should be increased. I have visited the paedophile unit at Scotland Yard, as well as its equivalent in my local police force in Sussex. The complaint was that such people have a technological know-how that is one step ahead of that of the police. Applying the necessary resourcesfrom the expertise of the personnel who try to crack into the computers to the cost of the hardware and software that is requiredis putting serious pressure on the police's resources. I agree with the need for a change in the law, but the police also need to reprioritise some of the resources so that the responsible departments have the wherewithal to ensure that people are brought to justice and that the penalty can be applied. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Paul Beresford: I certainly agree. I touched on that subject a little. The feeling that I got from NTAC was that it started off with a huge budget, but that the workload has gone up while the budget has not.
	My hon. Friend is right about another point. A friend of mine, a defence barrister who is very well known in the field, has described such individuals as the biggest bunch of cunning, intelligent liars she has come across. I recently watched an interview with one such individual and he was literally a rocket scientist. His intellect was considerable, but he had that awful need to abuse children.
	Let me come back to the point. We need the change. It must go through urgently in primary legislation. If it can go through on the tail of that Christmas tree Bill in the other place, that would be delightful. It will still be too late for that little three-year-old girl, but there will be more three-year-old girls and boys and the paedophilesthe individuals, both male and female, who do such thingsneed to be taken away and locked away from children.

Vernon Coaker: I begin by extending to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) my genuine thanks for the way in which he conducts himself with regard to these matters. I have had ministerial responsibility for this area for just over 18 months, and in that time he has worked very hard to bring various issues and facts to my attention. That has contributed greatly to the work that we are trying to do, and I am extremely grateful to him.
	The hon. Gentleman is also a member of the Home Secretary's taskforce and I know that he is highly regarded, both in the House and outside it, for the very valuable work that he does. He is committed and dedicated, in both a professional senseif that is the correct expressionand in a personal sense, and I compliment him on that. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has also made a significant contribution to our work on these matters, and I am grateful to him for attending this debate.
	At the outset, I should like to put various matters on record. Those of us attending the debate know the background to it, but we must remember that people outside the House read our proceedings too. Therefore, as well as responding to the questions that have been raised, it is important to lay out for them the processes that we have gone through.
	At this stage, though, I should like to extend to the hon. Member for Mole Valley, and any other hon. Member who is interested, an invitation to a meeting at which we can discuss some of the issues in more detail. A debate like this is important as a way to set out all the relevant information in cases such as the one that we are considering this evening, but hon. Members of all parties have a common interest in finding a way forward. We are all disgusted by the images that we know are accessed by paedophiles; we all want to protect children and to do as much as possible to prosecute paedophiles and bring them to justice. If we can learn from each other and discuss our common goals, we will be able to make progress.
	I hope that my offer is helpful, and if the hon. Member for Mole Valley is agreeable I shall ask my office to set to work putting a meeting together. In addition, if he is aware of other people, over and above the ones I would suggest, whom he would like to invite, I should be very happy to consider including them in the invitation.
	The Government have encouraged the growth of access to the internet, and firmly believe that the facilities available on it, from research information to online shopping, have helped to enhance the lives of our citizens. We are also keen to encourage the development of security on the internet, and to give our citizens the tools to ensure that any information that they send by that means remains secure.
	However, the Government recognise that the internet and associated technologies are used for unlawfuland sometimes frankly disgustingpurposes. The same information security technologies that provide security and confidentiality for legitimate business and financial transactions can be misused to secure and conceal images of children being sexually abused, so as to evade detection and prosecution.
	Nine years ago, in a report on law enforcement and encryption from the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit, the Government acknowledged that the misuse of security tools was a potential threat. Following that report, the Government established in 2000 the National Technical Assistance Centre to provide law enforcement with a national resource for the complex processing of lawfully obtained protected electronic information.
	Over seven years, NTAC has built up considerable expertise, which it has made available to law enforcement investigators. Complementing the development of NTAC, the Government provided resources to police forces to enable them to appoint and train dedicated forensic computing analysts and investigators who are better able to understand and identify digital evidence. In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that some people display a kind of evil genius when it comes to hiding what they do and that, as a result, law enforcement officers must have the same level of expertise. I know of the quality and standard of the people who work at NTAC. Their ability is astonishing.
	Similarly, I have visited the Serious Organised Crime Agency high-tech unit that deals with e-crime and seen the work that it does to break some of the computer codes, if that is the right way of putting it. It is astonishing. In this cyber-world, this internet world, this virtual world, it is about trying to develop that capacity. It may not involve a police officer, but we all need to look at the ability to develop law enforcement capacity to deal with that.
	Together, those individuals, both in police forces and in NTAC, are contributing to the delivery of results in making protected information intelligible. I know that the hon. Member for Mole Valley will understand why it would not be appropriate for me to disclose or even to imply exactly what capabilities either NTAC or our police forces have, what they can do and what they cannot do. As far as those individuals who seek to use information technology to conceal evidence of their crimes are concerned, we should, necessarily, do as much as we can to leave them guessing.
	Adding to the capabilities of law enforcement, the Government, as the hon. Gentleman said, have enabled part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Part 3 provides for the imposition of disclosure requirements on individuals to require disclosure of lawfully obtained protected information in an intelligible form, or to require disclosure of the means to access protected information or to make it intelligible, such as a key or a pass phrase.
	Parliament decided in 2000 that a penalty for failing to disclose information when required to do so should attract a maximum of two years' imprisonment. In the Terrorism Act 2006, Parliament agreed that, where the disclosure requirement was necessary in the interests of national security, it was appropriate that the maximum penalty should be five years' imprisonment. However, when the House debated the provisions of RIPA in 2000, the anticipation was that most individuals would routinely be encrypting data within four years. I am told that that did not happen. It is not necessarily happening in all cases yet.
	For the individual who wants to manage their own information security, rather than rely on professional help, many encryption products have remained awkward and cumbersome to use properly. Because of those difficulties, initially, the market take-up was limited. Correspondingly it was rare for investigators to come across suspects using encryption, whether properly or not. However, as the hon. Members for Mole Valley and for East Worthing and Shoreham have pointed out, the market has addressed those issues. There is a growing availability of easier-to-use encryption products. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley pointed out, that includes the advent of encryption products as integrated security features in standard operating systems aimed at home and small business users. That mass market adoption means, almost inevitably, that the use of information security technology by criminals to facilitate and conceal evidence of their unlawful conduct, so as to evade detection or prosecution, will increase.
	That is why the Government decided last year that the time had come to implement part 3 of RIPA. We undertook a consultation exercise on a code of practice for it, in which we explained that part 3 was not designed to undermine the security of financial institutions or the business of information security providers, or to criminalise people with bad memories who forget the passwords to their protected data. The same consultation also invited comments on amending section 53 of RIPA to extend the penalty for failing to comply with a disclosure requirement in cases related to offences involving indecent images of children.
	Only some respondents addressed that issue. Most respondents focused on the detail of the code of practice. There was support for amending section 53 and there were responses urging the Government to implement the provisions first and consider any evidence for amending them in the light of experience.
	The Government understand, and have always understood, the concern, clearly and frequently articulated by the hon. Gentleman, that a child sex abuser guilty of storing images of abuse, which they were responsible for creating or distributing, might refuse to comply with a disclosure requirement under part 3 of RIPA and readily accept a maximum two-year penalty, rather than comply with the requirement, disclose the images and render themselves liable to a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. I understand the point made by the hon. Members for Mole Valley and for East Worthing and Shoreham. I remain sympathetic to their concern, but before making any amendments, we want to assess how the provisions operate in practice. That is now taking place: the first disclosure notices are being prepared and served, and the first prosecutions for refusing to comply with a notice are being taken forward. However, before any prosecution takes place under existing penalties, complex issues of how to present evidence and explain how encryption technologies work will have to be addressed in court.
	The Government will consider amending the maximum penalty in criminal cases if there is evidence that the two-year penalty is not effective in cases that involve or are believed to involve indecent images of children. Such an amendment might include measures whereby a person guilty of failing to comply with a disclosure requirement would be liable to a term of imprisonment of more than two years if they had a previous conviction for an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, or if the relevant protected information was contained in or with media containing indecent images.
	To sum up where we are at the moment, we need to look at evidence gathered from prosecutors, police and others about what has happened since the relevant part of RIPA was introduced, so that we can determine how effective it has been. The hon. Member for Mole Valley and I have worked closely on these matters, and like him, I want to do all that I can to protect the children of this country from those who would abuse them. The three-year-old he mentioned requires the protection of the state and of the legislation for which we in Parliament are responsible. If we have a meeting to bring the relevant people together, we can discuss how to consider the legislation more effectively to see whether it requires amendment, and how best to take the issue forward. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is welcome to consider how he might be involved, because the protection of our children from paedophiles on the internet is not an issue that should divide us.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Five o'clock.